Non-Monetary Exchange, Part Two

What about behind the scenes?

How do the documentary photos that you see on this blog get taken? What about the video or the brochure that was created?

Again, barter is the modus operandi when intangibles like art are being created in social spaces that are invisible to cash economies. A good example is the hours of superb digital video that Emmy-award winning filmmakers Kathy Brew and Roberto Guerra shot on the first day of the Portrait Exchange. Although they were incredibly busy, Kathy and Roberto agreed to shoot for a variety of reasons including their own interest in the project and its focus on art-making in an unexpected place, and also, friendship – I’ve known them for years. Still, we also made a deal for a pair of portraits drawn by me, a deal which is as yet unredeemed (One of the intriguing aspects of barter economies is that the barter tends to slow down the pace of economic interactions between individuals, which is generally considered a negative. Yet my debt to Kathy and Roberto has drawn out our exchange to many months, in some ways magnifying our connections by ensuring that I contact them again down the road. This burden to reconnect hangs in the air like a thread between us until the barter is completed. I’m bound to their generosity. Economic exchange of this kind is not like anonymously buying a cup of coffee, or even, quite frankly, like hiring someone to do a one day video shoot.).

In the case of the Central Park Portrait Exchange, another issue of importance is the development of new internet driven barter tools. I’ve relied heavily on an artist/barter website called OurGoods.org. OurGoods, founded by a group of artists and designers including Jen Abrams, Louise Ma, Carl Tashian, Rich Watts, and Caroline Woolard, describes itself as “a community of cultural producers matching "needs" to offered "haves".” I would describe it as being like a barter Ebay for artists, except that barter economies are fundamentally more complex than cash-driven economies in terms of person-to-person interactions and are more capable of bringing people together in relationships that may play out over years.

By using the OurGoods site I’ve received the photographic skills of four different artists, help on the ground during the portrait exchanges, Mandarin translation services and the design of a brochure to hand out onsite in Central Park! In exchange I’ve provided many bags of organic fruits and vegetables and a variety of as yet unfulfilled promises such as studio visits and grant-writing advice. I find it gratifying that the barter system that OurGoods uses rhymes so well with the goals of the Portrait Exchange.

Still, in the end, my own donated labor is the prime animating force of the project.

How does an art project like the Central Park Portrait Exchange come into being?

    
Mostly through non-monetary exchange.

What’s that?

Trades, favors, apples for oranges, my labor given for your labor.

For example, each artist – professionals like Wei Chen, Dario Zapata or Artashes Karslian who regularly work in Central Park – has contributed a drawing and sat for another, but no money has changed hands (at least not yet). What do they get out of the deal and what do I, Peter Walsh, as organizer of the Portrait Exchange get out of this “non-monetary exchange”?

Well first, as the project organizer I have temporary physical possession of the drawings, which I hope to be able to exhibit down the road as a group exhibition. Maybe the work will be sold. Or not. At some point, if the drawings are not sold, the physical portrait exchange will be completed. I will receive all the drawings of myself and each artist will receive the portrait that I drew of them.

As the exchange organizer I get the added value of helping to create a group artwork which, outside of its considerable value as a meaningful artwork, has the potential to provide me with other opportunities in the art world and theoretically helps to build my career.

For the artists working in Central Park who have chosen to participate in the exchange, there’s been a savvy calculation that doing so will result in publicity and other intangibles that may help in their fight against New York City’s new rules restricting their ability to work in the park. That gambit has already paid off in articles such as journalist Leslie Koch's article "Artists sue Mayor Bloomberg, NYC Parks Department over new regulations", ongoing blog posts on this site and even in courtroom testimony on their behalf.

On September 13, 2010 I testified in New York State court to the veracity of video footage that I had shot because I’ve been working regularly on the exchange in Central Park. That video, which showed artists being forced by the city to run a footrace every morning in order to work, is part of a body of evidence that has kept in place a Temporary Restraining Order against the city’s new rules – and has given several months’ relief for the artists from the new regulations. How much of that is connected to the portrait exchange is one of those difficult to measure “intangibles,” but the gain is real and has kept work and money coming the artists’ way.

So far, the gamble of participating in the Central Park Portrait Exchange appears to be paying off for everyone.

Cold Weather

Cold weather has arrived.

A Temporary Restraining Order is in effect against the City of New York.

The courts are pondering a Preliminary Injunction against the new New York City Park Rules that drastically reduce the ability of many artists to work and show their work in the parks.

Stay tuned for a mid-project evaluation and commentary on the Central Park Portrait Exchange.

Hearing on Injunction Against New Park Rules Ends; Justice Tingling to Rule Soon

Artists' lawyer Jon Schuyler Brooks questioning artist Gao Min in court on Monday, September 20, 2010. Sketch: P. Walsh

Two more days of artists’ testimony were heard in New York State Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr.’s courtroom at 60 Centre Street in Manhattan this week, completing the hearing on a possible Preliminary Injunction against the New York City Parks Department’s new rules restricting artists’ ability to show and sell art in four city parks. Justice Tingling continued the standing Temporary Restraining Order pending his decision and indicated that he will rule on the injunction by next week.

On Monday, September 20, 2010 artists Diane Dua and Gao Min testified. Dua, a plaintiff in the case who has traditionally worked near the Metropolitan Museum of Art in Central Park, showed photographs and stated that she was unable to compete for the reduced number of spaces that the new rules had created. Lines for those spots begin forming in the middle of the night and married couples who work as a team have a distinct advantage. Sheryl Neufeld, an attorney for the New York City Law Department’s Administrative Law Division, asked why Dua didn’t simply move to another location. Dua explained that her loaded pushcart of photographs weighed hundreds of pounds and that it was difficult for her, as a petite woman, to move that cart from location to location, not knowing in advance where a space might be.

Artist Gao Min, speaking with the aid of a Mandarin translator, confirmed that he had shot a series of dramatic videos of the scramble to reserve spaces on Wien Walk. Those video clips were shown to Justice Tingling and the courtroom. Click here to see some of that video. This was the second piece of video evidence depicting about the situation at Wien Walk. Click here to see the first video.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, artists Bayo Iribhogbe, Tenzin Wangdu, Miriam West and George Moran also testified for the plaintiffs.

At the end of testimony on Wednesday, Justice Tingling continued the standing Temporary Restraining Order pending his decision and indicated that he will rule on the injunction by next week.

Assistant Commish Linn Grilled on the Stand In Artists' Hearing

New York City Parks Department Assistant Commissioner Jack Linn gave unexpected testimony today in Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr.’s courtroom while under a vigorous cross-examination by artist plaintiffs’ attorney Jon Schuyler Brooks. That testimony is potentially favorable for the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the revised park rules limiting artists’ ability to display and sell art in four New York City Parks.

Linn first testified on a large series of photos that he contended showed evidence of artists causing congestion in the parks and reducing the aesthetic experience of being in park space. He noted that Central Park is considered an artwork in its own right and that there are many permanent and temporary artworks and sculptures in the parks. He appeared to claim that artists working in the parks reduced the ability of the public to enjoy these large-scale artworks sited in the parks.

During voir dire for entering the photos as evidence and during cross-examination, Linn admitted that he had directed park staff to shoot particular photos but had only brought a small portion of those photos to court. Judge Tingling asked the city to give the artists’ attorneys access to the other photos. Linn suggested that what he had done was no different than what artists had done with testimony and videos during Monday’s hearing, but Brooks countered that Linn was attempting to claim his photos represented a general situation in the parks while the artists were presenting particular facts of specific moments. At one point Linn suggested that video shown in court on Monday (such as the video taken on Wien Walk by artist Peter Walsh) was staged. That comment was stuck from the record.

Linn was also grilled on the details of the revised park rules after he testified that he had a significant hand in drafting the rules. At one point he was given a copy of the rules while he searched in vain for an explanation of the process park officers should use in several situations that might arise implementing the first come first serve system.

Also of note, when pushed during questioning, Linn admitted that he did not know of any documented complaints against artist vendors by members of the public. This is in direct contradiction to the city’s published revised rules, which state that such complaints were the impetus for drafting the new rules.
The hearing continues on Monday, September 20th at 2pm at Judge Tingling’s courtroom at 60 Centre Street, Room 321.

(Image: Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr. in court today. Drawing by Peter Walsh)

Artists Peter Walsh and Joel Kaye Testify, Hearing to Continue Wednesday

"It smells like a license, it walks like a license, it talks like a license," said plaintiffs' attorney Jon Schuyler Brooks as he described the Park Department's new medallion scheme today in Justice Milton A. Tingling Jr.'s courtroom at 60 Centre Street in Manhattan. New York City laws and multiple court rulings forbid the city from imposing a licensing system on artists working in city parks.

Brooks and fellow Phillips Nizer attorneys Kevin B. McGrath and Jeffrey L. Shore presented arguments in favor of converting the standing Temporary Restraining Order against the Revised Park Rules restricting artists' ability to show and sell art in NYC parks into a Preliminary Injunction that would be in effect pending a final court ruling. The city's attorneys argued against the TRO and the Injunction saying that the revised rules were "reasonable time, place and manner restrictions." Attorney Brooks countered that since the rules only place restrictions on the number of artists who can work in the park, that they aren't in fact time, place or manner restrictions at all.

Artist Peter Walsh testified first confirming that he had shot video of artists being forced to race for authorized spots in Central Park. The video was then shown to Justice Tingling and the courtroom.

Artist Joel Kaye then testified about several videos that he had shot at Union Square Park including footage explicitly showing that the city's "authorized spaces" place artists dangerously close to speeding cars and buses, that Greenmarket trucks cause far more congestion than artists, and that there are large open spaces in Union Square Park at even the busiest of times.

The hearing will continue this Wednesday, September 15 at 2pm at the New York County Supreme Court building at 60 Center Street, Room 321 in Manhattan.

(Image: The New York County Supreme Court building at 60 Centre Street in Manhattan. Photo by Peter Walsh.)

State Judge to Hear Artists' Testimony this Monday, September 13th

Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr. of the New York State Supreme Court will hold a hearing this Monday, September 13^th at 2pm at 60 Center Street, Room 321 on the current Temporary Restraining Order blocking the enforcement of new park rules. Those rules restrict the ability of artists to work in New York City public parks. The hearing could result in a Preliminary Injunction that would block enforcement of the rules pending a final decision in the case filed against the city by artists Diane Dua, Joel Kaye, Artists United and others. That final decision may be many months away.

The artist plaintiffs are represented by Phillips Nizer lawyers Kevin B. McGrath, Jeffrey L. Shore and Jon Schuyler Brooks who will be calling witnesses to give evidence on the artists’ behalf. Artist Peter Walsh is scheduled to testify confirming that he shot video on Wien Walk documenting the degrading regulations created by the new park rules that force artists to race to designated artist locations at 6am every morning.