Street_Artists_Committee

STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE

Wednesday, March 20, 2008
3:00 p.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70

MINUTES

 Members present: Commissioners Alexander Lloyd and Sherene Melania

Members absent:   None

 Staff present:  Street Artists Program Director Howard Lazar

Commissioner Lloyd, Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:20 p.m. and asked that the Program Director’s Report be given first.

1.    Street Artists Program Director’s Report.

Continuous designation of winter holiday spaces. Street Artists Program Director Howard Lazar stated that, for each of the past twenty-six years, he has presented an Arts Commission proposal for temporary winter holiday spaces on behalf of the street artists, and that early this month the Commission approved the Street Artists Committee’s recommendation that the Program Director be authorized to request from the Board of Supervisors continuous (for ensuing years) designation of the current winter holiday spaces.  Mr. Lazar drafted a resolution for this and submitted it to the Board of Supervisors for a hearing. He also reported that the legislation received the support of the Union Square Association and the Merchants of Upper Market & Castro.

Street artist certificate fee and Advisory Committee compensation rate for FY 2008-09. Mr. Lazar submitted a request to the City Attorney to draft ordinances providing for the Arts Commission’s proposed street artist certificate fee and rate of compensation for the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners for fiscal year 2008-09.

Lottery Committee meetings. Mr. Lazar attended the first of monthly Lottery Committee meetings, after there had been an absence of meetings for three years. At the Lottery Committee’s request, he agreed to facilitate the meetings. A number of topics for improving lottery procedures were discussed, but no proposals for change were as yet ready for submittal to the Street Artists Committee.

2.       Hearing and possible motion to approve certain street artist spaces, including temporary winter holiday spaces, for use on Saturdays only (continued from February 13, 2008 meeting).

Program Director Lazar reviewed that the concept of creating Saturday-use spaces was proposed by Street Artists Robert and William Clark at the previous meeting of the Street Artists Committee, and the Commissioners had expressed receptivity to the idea.  Thereupon the Clarks and Mr. Lazar had e-mailed street artists inviting them to submit proposals.  Mr. Lazar received proposals from five artists (Madeline Marrow, Kathleen Hallinan, Robert Clark, William Clark, and Jimmy Sha) and forwarded these with a summary to the Commissioners. For consideration as year-round Saturday spaces, there were some current winter holiday spaces as well as totally new locations.

Commissioner Lloyd expressed that the artists, staff, and Commissioners should consider being strategic with regard to those spaces that would be ultimately requested of the Board of Supervisors.  A long list of entirely new spaces, he said, would likely be disapproved, rather than achieving, for example, some spaces that had already been previously approved and used as winter holiday spaces.

Street Artist William Clark stated that, while the street artist ordinance allows the Board of Supervisors to designate street artist spaces on any public sidewalk, the artists and staff have, over the years, misinterpreted the public safety regulations by thinking that a space has to fully conform to the dimensions of three feet in width, four feet in length, and five feet in height. This thinking, in effect, has significantly restricted the amount of possible sidewalk space available to the artists.  In truth, however, the regulations allow for an artist’s display to be any size within the prescribed regulations – in essence, less than three feet by four feet by five feet. This, then, significantly opens the amount of available sidewalk space inSan Francisco. 

Mr. Clark asked that the item be continued for a month to give the artists an opportunity to survey various sidewalks and submit a more complete proposal.

Street Artist Robert Clark stated that, over the years, the artists felt that the safety regulations were overly restrictive in that they were being used to eliminate the artists from ninety-five percent of the city. This had resulted in the artists being “ghettoized” in the Wharf and Downtown areas.  He wanted to see the City and the store merchants placed in a position whereby they could not refuse to give the artists at least one location per requested street.  That was why his brother and he were asking for only one location for each of the thirteen streets they had requested. Furthermore, if Saturday locations could be obtained throughout the city, some of the pressure would be removed from the spaces in the Wharf area.

Street Artist Edward Steneck asked that the Arts Commission consider requesting that all of the winter holiday spaces be made into Saturday spaces.

Program Director Lazar clarified that, whenever he has submitted proposals for spaces, he has always attempted to go to the Board of Supervisors without store merchant opposition, having first negotiated with the merchants of the areas affected by such spaces.  If a proposal is met with merchant opposition, he has reported it to the Supervisors.

Mr. Lazar further clarified with a diagram the statement made by William Clark about a space not being required to fill the dimensions allotted by the regulations.  This would allow for spaces to be placed on sidewalks narrower than twelve and a half feet, so long as an eight-foot pedestrian passageway could still be maintained.

Commissioner Lloyd commented that offering to the Board of Supervisors a change in interpretation of street artist display sizes would require more work to get the Supervisors to agree to it. This was one more reason supporting his opinion that the Commission should pursue a more practical route of making winter holiday spaces into year-round Saturday spaces. Furthermore, they would not significantly impact the community. 

The Commissioner went on to advise that, if the artists wanted to request new additional spaces, he would like to see the artists as a group create a list of  priority spaces subject to negotiation and, hopefully, the accord of the merchants.  He recommended that Mr. Lazar, as before, assist in coordinating the artists’ choices and then negotiate with the merchants on such spaces prior to submitting them to the Street Artists Committee and, ultimately, the Board of Supervisors.

Street Artist Robert Clark stated that that was the very reason for the artists coming to today’s meeting: by the artists’ reducing the width of their spaces, the merchants should have no legitimate right to contest the presence of only one space on an entire street. In the past, he said, whenever spaces have been proposed in other districts of the city, the merchants have opposed them, and that was why for thirty-five years no spaces have existed in those areas. On the other hand, perhaps spaces could have been obtained twenty years ago in some outlying areas if the artists had understood that spaces less than three feet wide could have been requested.

Street Artist William Clark stated that the artists would be glad to work with Mr. Lazar in achieving a list of requested spaces, and that Mr. Lazar would notify the impacted merchants for a Street Artists Committee hearing; but if the merchants do not appear, the artists’ list should be forwarded by the Arts Commission to the Board of Supervisors, and the merchants would be given a second opportunity to address the issue.

Street Artist Michael Addario stated that, to him, the Wharf was the most critical area because of impending construction at The Cannery, extension of the F-line, and a downturn in street artist sales on Beach Street.  He stated that he would like to see a meeting with the Port whose  performers program commenced but is lacking an enforcement arm: there are still unlicensed vendors taking lucrative spaces in the area.  The Port, he said, will not let the street artists sell in the same area but will let unlicensed vendors sell there. Spray painters with generators are still present.  While the Port, he said, cannot enforce its own program, it discriminates against the street artists.

Mr. Addario went on to state that there was a First Amendment issue under which, he said, the street artists should be allowed to set up anywhere.  A law which is currently being challenged, he said, states that anyone selling painting, photography, CDs, or books can sell these anywhere on any sidewalk or in any park. This, he asserted, was what the Port was basing its program on.

At the end of public comment, Commissioner Lloyd tabled the item.  He requested that the artists and Mr. Lazar submit a consolidated, carefully researched package of proposed Saturday spaces which could include some locations at the Port.

Commissioner Melania asked that previously used spaces be indicated on the list of proposed Saturday spaces.

3.       Hearing and possible motion to approve amending Arts Commission criteria for arts and crafts to prohibit any Street Artist who is screened to sell non-handmade items from having a family unit member.

Program Director Howard Lazar clarified the definition of “family unit”: two or more street artists jointly engaged in the creation or production of an art or craft item, no one of whom stands in an employer-employee relationship to any of the other members of the unit.  The benefit of a product’s being produced by two or more artists, he said, is that the product can be displayed by all family unit members at different times or simultaneously. He went on to exemplify typical family unit contributions to various arts and crafts, including computer-generated art, licensed by the Street Artists Program. 

Street Artist William Clark stated that on October 4, 1999, the Arts Commission changed its criteria from limited editions to unlimited editions of third-party produced reproductions of an artist’s artwork. Mr. Clark stated that, while he was not asking for an outright elimination of family units per se, once the limitation was lifted, no safeguards remained. For example, if an artist makes a drawing with his family unit member contributing some aspect to it, and the drawing is shipped to a third party for its reproduction, an unlimited number of prints can be sold by both unit members.  But if a photographer has his photograph reproduced by a third party, and afterward the photographer brings into the Program a family unit member, that new individual should not be allowed to sell the product for which he made no artistic contribution.  Yet there have been problems as, for example, when an artist does a drawing, a second artist paints one color on it, the drawing is mass produced, and it is exhibited on the street with only one artist’s name on it.  He stated that Street Artists Sharon MacDougall and Edward Steneck were doing this.  Mr. Steneck was observed selling Ms. MacDougall’s prints with his name only on them.  Mr. Clark told Mr. Steneck that that was a fraud to the public, and that on each item for which they are a family unit both of their names should appear.

In response to a question by Commissioner Lloyd, Mr. Clark stated that the actual harm being caused by this is that there is no safeguard against a newly acquired family unit member selling items that had been previously screened as the sole work of the other family unit member, the new member becoming, in effect, the salesperson for the other member.  The fact that prints of photographers or artists are being produced by third parties creates a loophole for such items to be sold by persons who did not contribute to the creation of the originals. At present, there are family units with more than one oversized display selling prints being sold by a person whose name does not appear on the prints.  Mr. Clark has heard such persons tell the public: “This is my husband’s paintings.” Such displays are mathematically eliminating prime spaces on prime selling days from artists who try to sell their own handmade (not third-party reproduced) items.

Mr. Clark went on to say that, while current criteria for prints allows artists to simply stamp the back of a print with the artist’s name, he would like to see items created by a family unit and reproduced by a third party bearing the names of all  family unit members on the front of the print itself. He also stated that any prints of new artwork jointly created by a family unit should first be approved by the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Craftsmen Examiners before any member of the family unit is allowed to sell them.

Mr. Lazar explained a problematic situation. An artist will be screened and approved to sell prints of his own artwork; he will then acquire a family unit member who is screened and approved to sell prints of artwork they jointly create.  While the reproductions of the jointly-created artwork are then legally displayed by both artists, the new family unit member will likely begin selling  prints of the work created solely by the original artist. This is illegal, and it becomes an enforcement problem for the Program. However, he said, the problem may be fixed if the names of all unit members who created the original artwork would be required to appear on the face of each of work’s reproductions.

Commissioner Lloyd asked Mr. Clark if he had anything more to say on the item, and Mr. Clark affirmed that he had a few more points to make. Commissioner Lloyd then stated that, if that was the case, Mr. Clark’s brother could finish his presentation for him during his brother’s allotted time period.

Street Artist Sharon MacDougall showed samples of paintings she created with Street Artist Edward Steneck and which they both signed. She stated that she objected to the notion of having to be screened for each painting they create.  She further stated that she and Mr. Steneck simultaneously sell in different locations and that, while they are at their displays, they stamp the back of their prints with both their names. The artist (MacDougall or Steneck) who is the one to mat the prints on any given day is the one who signs the mat with his/her name only. The signing of the print, she said, is voluntary; while the stamping of the names and the nature of the print on the back of the print is required by the Arts Commission criteria for prints.

The Commissioners viewed the stamped names on the back of the sample prints shown by Ms. MacDougall.

Mr. Lazar clarified that the Commission’s criteria provide that artists who sell prints, either created by the artist or reproduced by a third party, must attach to the back of each print a statement containing the artist’s name and the type of print (for example, laser print, offset lithograph, monoprint, etc.). The criteria allow for the statement to be enclosed with the print in clear plastic and not necessarily glued or taped to the back of the print. Furthermore, the screening committee, he said, has not insisted that prints or other third-party produced products be signed on the front of the products; rather, the screening committee has been satisfied with seeing a name statement on the back of the product or in its plastic envelope.

Commissioner Lloyd, expressing enthusiasm for the work shown by Ms. MacDougall, suggested that the Committee consider the idea of allowing time at each Street Artists Committee meeting for a street artist to show his/her work.

Commissioner Melania stated that she felt that the imprint of both names on the back of the prints was sufficient in informing the public that the work was created by both artists.

Street Artist Robert Clark commented that if he were a tourist walking down the street and viewed Mr. Steneck selling his matted prints with only his signature on the mat, Mr. Clark would believe that the original art was created by Mr. Steneck alone.  If, however, the work was created by both Mr. Steneck and Ms. MacDougall, Mr. Clark would want to see both names appearing on the front of the prints themselves (not on the mats).  Otherwise, he said, a fraud was being committed.

Commissioner Melania affirmed that Ms. MacDougall’s name appeared with Mr. Steneck’s on the back of the prints.

Mr. Clark countered that Ms. MacDougall’s name was not on the front of all of the prints. He stated that it was easy for Ms. MacDougall to come to the meeting and show a print with her signature on the front of it and claim that it proves she signs the front of all her prints, when all it proved was that she signed the front of that particular print.  Mr. Clark then stated that he personally saw Mr. Steneck selling Ms. MacDougall’s prints without her signature anywhere on the front of the print or on the mat.

Commissioner Lloyd asked Ms. MacDougall if she felt it would be reasonable for her and Mr. Steneck to mutually sign all their prints.

Street Artist Robert Clark stated that the signing should be on the front of the prints for the public’s awareness of two people having created the works.  Otherwise, it could be a fraud.  He spoke of the incident of his viewing Mr. Steneck selling prints whose front bore only his name and, under questioning by Mr. Clark, Mr. Steneck telling him that it was, in fact, one of Ms. MacDougall’s paintings and that he had done only a very small portion of the original artwork. Mr. Clark asked him why her name did not appear on the front of the print as well, and Mr. Steneck told him that the appearance of both names on the prints would confuse the public.  Mr. Clark told Mr. Steneck that he was committing fraud.

Mr. Clark reiterated that if the Commission had not rescinded its limited edition rule, it would not be faced with scams of this nature. 

To the Commissioners Mr. Clark stated that if items were created by both Mr. Steneck and Ms. MacDougall, the two artists should be proud to put both their names on them, and it would not matter if the public got confused.

While Commissioner Lloyd stated that he understood Mr. Clark’s point, Mr. Clark continued on.  The Commissioner stated that Mr. Clark had already exceeded his three minutes, to which Mr. Clark stated that, after working for thirty-five years on the Street Artists Program, he was due the respect of being allowed to finish his statement even if it took longer than three minutes. He went on to express his suspicion of any artist allowed to paint in areas of a composition that had been pre-drawn or pre-painted by another artist: it was like “paint by numbers,” a process not allowed for certification in the Street Artists Program.  If Mr. Steneck was told to “scam the rules” by painting in prescribed areas of Ms. MacDougall’s compositions, Mr. Steneck’s contribution could not be considered as a significant contribution to the product and he should thereby not be considered a family unit member.

Mr. Clark added that he did not feel that an artist who is originally screened to sell an original product which is now an unlimited print should allow another artist to sell the print, even if the other artist claims they now contributed something to the original.  Increasing the problem is the Arts Commission’s rescission of limited prints which paved the way for artists to sell hundreds of prints, causing problems for the other artists who are creating limited handmade items.  “We can’t compete with those people anymore,” he said; “they’re taking up our spaces; they’re putting out oversized displays; they’re parking their cars at the parking meters with their trunks full of sweatshirts and photos and prints; as a result we have the Port coming down on Howard, saying ‘Hey, look, you people are taking up the meters, you’re parking your cars here all day, you’re putting up oversized displays.’ …”  Legitimate family unit members, he said, should be allowed to sell only those items for which they were mutually approved.  They should come to a screening and show what they do on each painting; otherwise, the situation was too ripe for artists to scam the rules by acquiring family unit members to sell for them. Mr. Clark finished his presentation.

Street Artist Michael Addario interjected that it “was a long three minutes we just had to endure.”

Mr. Clark reiterated that if the Commission had not rescinded its limited edition rule, it would not be faced with scams of this nature.

A verbal interchange ensued between Mr. Addario and Mr. Clark.

Commissioner Lloyd acknowledged the existence of elements of the Program that required fixing. Mr. Clark continued to tell Mr. Addario and the Committee that he was not going to allow Mr. Addario or anyone else to insult him after he had worked for thirty-five years on the Street Artists Program.  The Commissioner stated that Mr. Clark had spoken far more than anyone at the meeting; to which Mr. Clark again stated that he would not tolerate being insulted by Mr. Addario. 

At this point, Mr. Addario stated that Mr. Clark “won’t shut up.”

A shouting match between the artists ensued. 

Commissioner Lloyd banged his gavel, and warned everyone that if a respectful conversation could not take place, he would adjourn the meeting. 

Mr. Clark loudly reiterated that he did not want to be insulted by Mr. Addario.

Commissioner Lloyd abruptly adjourned the meeting at 3:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:

Howard Lazar

Street Artists Program Director

 

April 1, 2008