Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 17 February 2014

The San Francisco Street Artists Program, which started in June 1972, is a program that enables local independent artists to purchase a municipal license that allows them to sell arts and crafts of their own creation in designated selling spaces throughout San Francisco. The program did not come easily, but was the result of a hard fought political battle by street-art advocates who were not only resourceful enough to strategically organize, but were so committed that they would be arrested many times in drawing the essential media attention necessary for their vision to be realized into law.

The licensed artists of the program are only allowed to sell items that they have predominately created, and not commercially-manufactured goods – thus striking an important compromise with local retail establishments. Some four decades later and with the participation of hundreds of artists, the San Francisco Street Artists Program continues to create inexpensive marketing opportunities for independent artists and craftspeople. The program is entirely funded by the artists' license fees, and generates $4 million annually to the city's economic life.

However time would reveal the Street Artists Program to be more than a municipal arts program – it would also serve a training ground for grassroots political activism, and also open a ongoing political dialogue about what activities should, and should not be, allowed in public areas. The arts program would also as serve as a template for other cities wanting to create their own street artists programs, and whose officials would contact the Street Artists Program's office in requesting advice and documentation about the procedures which govern the San Francisco Street Artists Program.

History

The actual roots of the San Francisco Street Artists Program begin well before the defining legislation of 1972. During the 1960s, California was experiencing many outdoor art fairs which grew a culture of independent artists and craftspersons who would support themselves with the sale of their artwork. And at the same time in the liberal Haight Ashbury neighborhood, there was an effort to sell crafts on Haight Street's sidewalks. Later in the early 1970s two gay artists, Warren Garrick and Frank Whyte, would be instrumental in petitioning San Francisco's government for an arts program that enabled artists to legally sell on the city's sidewalks. Prior to the legislation of 1972, artists and street performers would informally set up in public areas but were frequently harassed and arrested by the police. Aquatic Park near Fishermans Wharf was just such an area where twenty or so artists would sell with the help of look-outs – people who would watch for the police and then warn the artists, so they could temporarily move and avoid arrest. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the United States was engulfed in the controversial Vietnam War which resulted in widespread political activism and protests at cities and universities across the county. That era's intense political activism, nearby as the University of California, Berkeley, is seen as a cultural catalyst for the grassroots political energy of the San Francisco street-art advocates who would create one of the first street artists programs in America.

1971

After the arrest of a few artists in Aquatic Park in February 1971, a first attempt was made to organize, and with Warren Garrick's guidance the Street Artists Guild was formed. Warren Garrick would emerge as politically articulate spokesperson whose vision would eventually be realized as the San Francisco Street Artists Program. The Street Artists' Guild then hired a lawyer, Peter Keane, and began to develop a strategy for moving towards a municipal program where art could be legally sold on the city's sidewalks.

When artists were arrested for informally selling their work on San Francisco's sidewalks, they were charged with peddling without a license – within the city's laws was a provision to issue peddlers' permits. However the police department which oversaw the granting of peddlers licenses was unwilling to issue any new peddlers permits, and it was revealed that only two people had been granted peddlers permits since 1969. Keane and street-art activists realized that the city had placed itself in a difficult position by arbitrarily denying access to a provision within the city charter, and were prepared to legally exploit that vulnerability.

In April 1971 the street artists held a couple of protests at city hall and at Mayor Joseph Alioto's office while carrying a coffin, which symbolized the death of their incomes as a result of frequent police arrests. The protests gained news coverage and Alioto responded by saying that he would talk to the police chief about a solution for the permits, and would then schedule talks with the artists' organizers. During those later dialogs with Mayor Alioto, Garrick suggested that they should consider a separate licensing system just for artists who sell their own creations, and that the city needs to provide designated selling areas for those licensed artists. Mayor Alioto was not resistant to the proposal, the talks went well, and Garrick left the meetings feeling that there would be a moratorium on the arrests.

However, later in May when the talks began to stall, Garrick then realized that no real progress was being made with the mayor and the police chief. The artists then acquired a temporary state park permit which allowed them to sell in Victorian Park near Fisherman's Wharf. At the end of the afternoon, when the permit expired, they moved from the park to selling on the nearby sidewalks of Beach Street, the police made arrests, and the moratorium was officially over. When the jailed artists were arraigned before Judge Axelrod, he commented that he "thought that the code section was unconstitutional" because the law sets no clear standards for licensing and makes no provision for fair hearings on permit applications. Recognizing the city's legal jeopardy, the Guild's organizers then recruited the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and lawyer Robert Cantor to file suit with the city over the arrests because the city had given "absolute and unguided discretion to the license granting authority which consistently and systematically denies permits to artists and musicians." The Street Artists Guild also contended that such works – when sold on public sidewalks – are expressions of art protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Then in September 1971, as a result of the ACLU's lawsuit, a superior court judge issued a restraining order which prohibited the police from arresting artists who sell on the sidewalks. However the police did not halt the ongoing arrests, and in October Judge Ira Brown issued an injunction and scolded the police for ignoring the restraining order by persisting with more arrests. That injunction would mean that any policeman who continued to arrest artists could be fined or jailed by Judge Brown. Word quickly spread of the new legal privilege – that artists could sell anywhere without being arrested – and suddenly hundreds of new artists and opportunists came to the sidewalks of crowded Union Square to sell their products during the busy Christmas season. This flood of new artists along with questionable opportunists – who would sell with no regulations or enforcement – created an environment of chaos which would occasionally result in violence among the sellers as they argued about the selection of selling spaces. The disorder and violence of that December would foreshadow a continuing and grave liability for this and any street artists program: without regulation and an enforcement strategy, any street artists program could easily be infiltrated by opportunists who would make money their sole priority, drastically lower the quality of products, sell commercially-manufactured items, and occasionally resort to intimidation or violence during selling space selection.

It would not be until December 15th when another judge would overrule the injunction in declaring that the peddlers ordinance was not unconstitutional, and that the police could continue with the arrests. But since there were less than ten days until the end of the Christmas season, Mayor Alioto decided not to allow any more arrests and to only have the police issue warnings. Despite the lack of a proposed arts program, the arrests and legal changes of 1971 had attracted enough media attention that a member of the San Francisco Arts Commission, Ray Taliaferro, expressed his desire that the Arts Commission should support legislation that licenses and regulates artists and musicians. In December 1971 Taliaferro declared to the media, "I hate to see the street artists and musicians run out of the city. This is a significant artistic revolution we see going on. The city should do what it can to encourage these people."

1972

In January 1972 Mayor Alioto proposed that artists should be licensed and regulated by some city agency, and he granted the three requested areas where street artists could sell – inside of Union Square on weekends, on Beach Street during Sundays, and full-time at Embarcadero Plaza. However city supervisor Quentin Kopp, when responding to pressure from downtown merchants, questioned the mayor's authority to initiate such a program. Then two other city supervisors, Terry Francois and Robert Mendelson, introduced a resolution for artists to acquire permits, allow the supervisors to select selling areas, and to have the artists' peers judge whether or not their products were of their own creation. Kopp followed by submitting his own resolution to the Board of Supervisors. Under Kopp's plan, the program would be run by a chief administrator, and it would be the supervisors who would determine who should receive a license and where the artists would be allowed to sell. Kopp also suggested that the price of a license should be minimal, being between $48 and $100 a year.

Finally in March 1972 the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal to have street artists receive their licenses through the San Francisco Arts Commission, which would have its own committee to evaluate if the work was of the artist's own creation and not a commercially-manufactured product. The new arts program would be run by a chief administrator, Tomas Mellon, and it would be the supervisors who would decide selling locations for the artists. Unfortunately for the artists, it was only the least desirable of the three originally proposed selling areas which was approved by the supervisors. That sole area was Embarcadero Plaza, where there was little foot traffic to attract customers. Not all members of the Arts Commission were receptive to the supervisors' proposal. Commissioner Alec Yuill complained that the new responsibilities would be a "demeaning imposition. A matter of public nuisance, not of artistic judgement." However some commissioners like Ray Taliaferro and Ruth Asawa, supported the artists and the creation of a street artists' program. This would not be the last time that some members of the Arts Commission would attempt to dodge the responsibilities of the Street Artists Program.

The new law was a mixed blessing for the street artists. Though they were pleased that an artist licensing program had finally become law, they were frustrated that they would be confined to Embarcadero Plaza and not be able to continue in their previous selling areas near Aquatic Park and by Union Square. The artists' organizers continued to schedule meetings before the Board of Supervisors in an attempt to also include Aquatic Park's Beach Street and downtown selling locations as well. However each time the artists met stiff resistance from city supervisors Dianne Feinstein, Pete Tamaras, and Terry Francois. Those supervisors were reluctant to approve any selling areas without the merchant associations' approval. By this time the merchants and retail stores had become very organized and inflexible concerning the issue of additional selling areas. Frustrated with the impasse over additional selling areas, many of the newly licensed artists risked arrest and went back to selling informally near Aquatic Park and on the downtown sidewalks.

1973

During 1972 and 1973 the Street Artists Guild would make nine attempts in asking the Board of Supervisors for viable selling spaces before they considered circumventing city hall by submitting a ballot initiative directly to the voters. Within San Francisco's government, laws can also be enacted directly by the people through a ballot initiative process, which must later be approved by a majority of voters during an election.

Street-art activist William Clark then researched and composed a ballot initiative, called Proposition J, for an upcoming election in 1974. The street artists would then have to gather over 12,000 signatures of registered voters in order for the that ballot initiative to qualify for placement in an upcoming election.

1974

After Clark and other street artists gathered over 25,000 signatures, that initiative was placed on the ballot and Proposition J passed in June 1974. Proposition J was very generous law for street artists in that it let them sell virtually anywhere on the city's sidewalks. The popularity of the new arts program attracted hundreds of new artists to San Francisco’s sidewalks, and by December fifteen hundred artists would have licenses. That September, just a few months after the ballot initiative was passed, the Downtown Merchants Association began to complain that the sidewalks had become flooded with artists, and that their displays created "wall-to-wall street artists" who "seriously hamper pedestrian traffic." Near the start of December the police, in carrying out new Fire Department rules, began to clear many street artists out of the downtown area. Their explanation was that the artists and their displays were blocking fire hydrants and store exits. Though the artists quietly left after police warnings, the organizers of the Guild said they would challenge the new police crackdown in court. That very next day a judge from an appeals court issued a writ of mandate which would temporally block the enforcement of the new Fire Department rules until a hearing by Judge Ira Brown would be held in Superior Court. At the same time the Guild's lawyer set up a meeting with the artists to create a system of self-regulation, in an attempt to keep them out of the courts.

Being without any regulation or enforcement, selling spaces were acquired on a first come, first serve basis. So many artists had decided to sell near the popular downtown areas that some of them had to show up as early as 3am in order to get a good selling space for that day. Eventually some opportunistic sellers began to actually guard their selling spaces overnight, so they could be assured they would have their same favorite selling space on the next day, and the day after that. Frustrated with the congestion of street artists, the Board of Supervisors then approved a new ordinance sponsored by Quentin Kopp, which would sharply reduce the number of selling locations by specifying that an artist's display must be on a sidewalk which was wide enough to allow a ten foot wide pedestrian walk way.Many of the sidewalks were not wide enough to satisfy that width requirement. The new regulations of the Kopp Ordinance were much more demanding than the new Fire Department rules, and the artists were very concerned that there might not be many locations which would satisfy those requirements. However the Kopp Ordinance was likely to be challenged in court by the Guild's lawyers because it conflicted with the provisions of Proposition J. Within San Francisco's government, a voter-approved ballot initiative can not be overturned by the Board of Supervisors, only by another ballot initiative.

1975

In January 1975 the proposed Kopp Ordinance was approved by the Board of Supervisors. For the first half of 1975 the artists grudgingly sold within the Kopp Ordinance's restrictions, but by May many artists chose to protest the new ordinance in violating its provisions by selling in undesignated areas, and choose to be arrested and jailed rather than simply signing a police citation and going home. Later, in June 1975, the supervisors, sensing the vulnerability of the Kopp Ordinance within the courts, decided to write their own street artists ballot initiative called Proposition L, which would repeal Proposition J. Proposition L would set up a stricter system of artist regulations, registration, and inspection. It would also give the supervisors power to regulate selling locations.

George Moscone, at the time a state senator and a candidate for mayor, sided with the street artists in opposing Proposition L by stating, "The attempts to harass them off the streets of our city and to circumvent the will of the people as expressed through their approval of Proposition J are, to me, terribly wasteful." Moscone would later become mayor, and demonstrate a very supportive position for the Street Artists Program – more than any other mayor in San Francisco's history. Later in 1976, the street artists nearly lost all their downtown selling spaces when the Board of Supervisors voted to permanently remove them. However it was Moscone's mayoral veto which stopped the supervisors' proposal, and preserved those selling spaces for decades to come.

The street artists responded to the threat of Proposition L by drafting their own new ballot initiative for the same election, called Proposition M. Their proposal, with its four pages of rules, would further limit the power of the supervisors over selling space selection, but would still contain provisions for fire and safety regulations which would ease sidewalk congestion. In an effort to appease the merchant community, the specifications of Proposition M would reduce the number of artists around Union Square by 75%, have a system to insure that artists make what they sell, and would also limit the number of artists in a given region by using a lottery system to equally share designated selling spaces.

Unfortunately for the street artists, Proposition M would fail at the polls and Proposition L, with its very limited number of selling spaces, would become law. To date, the ordinance defined by Proposition L is still the current law which describes the procedures and privileges of the San Francisco Street Artists Program. After the passage of Proposition L in late November, the artists met with the supervisors to resolve what selling areas would be designated as a result of the new law. That meeting held a positive tone for both sides and granted selling spaces in the Union Square area, on Market Street, at Fisherman’s Wharf, and on Beach Street near Ghirardelli Square. It was also decided that the Public Works Department would mark off and number selling spaces upon the sidewalk, so they could be equally shared among the artists with a daily lottery for selling space selection. And to halt the problem of people guarding selling spaces overnight, street artist Joy McCoskey suggested that no selling space should be occupied between the hours of midnight and 6am in order to "eliminate the occupation of desirable locations by force, by permanently camping-out on them." The downtown merchants seemed content with the new regulations and selling spaces, and felt that they would prevent a repeat of earlier Christmas seasons' sidewalk congestion. In early December 1975 the new ordinance finally went into effect, and 800 street artists bought licenses for a fee of $80 a year.

Criteria for acceptable arts and crafts

The centerpiece of the San Francisco Street Artists Program is the principal that only items which an artist has "predominately created" should be allowed for sale. The program strictly forbids the sale of commercially-manufactured products. The stipulation that commercially-manufactured products should be forbidden was very necessary to reassure the merchant community of retail stores that street artists would not be selling items like cameras in front of their shops.

Before a street artist license is granted, the artist must demonstrate to a screening committee that they did indeed create the product that they will sell. For each craft category there is a set of guidelines which specifies what is, and what is not, permitted for a product to be designated as "predominately created by the artist". During the screening of an artist's work, the artist must not only bring finished items which they have created, but must also bring raw source materials, show partially completed items, and show receipts for the raw materials of their product. The members of the screening committee can also ask that an artist create a piece while before them. And if the screening committee is still not satisfied that the work is of the artist's own creation they can schedule a shop visit, which will cause members of the screening committee to visit the artist’s workshop in verifying the creation process.

Since it is not unusual for financial opportunists who do not created their products – whether they be commercially-manufactured or manufactured by another craftsperson – to attempt to acquire a license from the program, the diligence of the screening committee becomes essential for the program's survival. Having licensed street artists sell items that they did not create can generate many negative effects for a street art program and its reputable artists. If a street artists program develops a reputation that they are allowing commercially-manufactured items, the very organized merchant community of retail stores will urge city government to limit or disable that program. And if scammed or not-created-by-artist products are allowed, they will displace sales from valid artists and have a demoralizing effect on sincere artists who put their heart and sweat into their work.

The following are some of the various craft categories which are permitted: Bead Making, Bead Stringing, Button Craft Jewelry, Candles, Castings, Ceramics, Sculpture, Coin Cutting, Computer-Generated & New Technology Art, Decoupage, Doughcrafting, DVD’s/Cassette Tapes/CD’s, Enameling, Engraving, Fabricated and/or Cast Jewelry, Feather Art, Fiber Art, Found Objects, Glass Art (Blown Glass and Stained Glass), Kite Making, Lapidary, Leathercraft (Including Belts and Soft Clothing), Millinery, Miscellaneous Items, Musical Instruments, Painting and Drawing, Paper and Papier Maché Jewelry, Photography, Pipes, Plants and Dried Flowers, Plastic and Metal Arts, Printmaking, Puppets and Dolls, Sewn Items (Including some Puppets and Dolls), Shell Jewelry, String Sculpture, Terrarium Making, Textile Arts, Toy Making, and Woodcraft.

Designated selling locations

Street artists are allowed to sell only in designated areas which are described within the original ordinance, and are occasionally appended through time by the Board of Supervisors. The designated selling spaces are clustered in a handful of regions about San Francisco: Fisherman's Wharf, the downtown financial district, the Cliff House, and Justin Herman Plaza. Unlike some public arts programs like Seattle’s Pike's Place Market, San Francisco does not assign selling spaces by seniority. In order to fairly share the better selling spots among all licensed artists, daily lotteries and a selling space signup procedure are held every morning to determine an orderly and fair assignment of selling spaces for that day. An orderly and fair space selection procedure is considered essential for such a program, because disorderly or unfair selling space assignments can cause confusion and hostility among the artists.

See also

• Pike's Place Public Market
• Street Artist
• San Francisco Arts Commission
• Handicraft
• Craft
• First Amendment to the United States Constitution

References

1. "San Francisco Street Artists Web Site". San Francisco Arts Commission.
2. ^ "Judge's Boost for S.F. Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (18 May 1971), p. 3
3. ^ "More Peddler Busts", San Francisco Chronicle (20 September 1971), p. 2
4. ^ "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 15.
5. San Francisco Arts Commission Brochure – World Class Art for A World Class City, 2011, p. 6
6. ^ "New Artists' Court Plea", San Francisco Chronicle (12 April 1974), p. 4
7. , "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations, and Ordinance". San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
8. ^ Dooley, Dennis; Usher, Tom. "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore". City Miner Magazine.
9. ^ "Street Artists vs. Law – It's Not a Pretty Picture", San Francisco Chronicle (2 April 1971), p. 3
10. ^ "Street Artists Attorney Testifies", San Francisco Chronicle (3 December 1971), p. 9
11. "City Hall Protest By Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (15 April 1971), p. 2
12. "Alioto, Friend Of the Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (16 April 1971), p. 26
13. ^ "Street Artists Meet the Mayor", San Francisco Chronicle (24 April 1971), p. 33
14. "Street Artists To Dramatize Police Beefs", San Francisco Chronicle (8 May 1971), p. 28
15. ^ "S.F. Street Artists Are Arrested", San Francisco Chronicle (17 May 1971), p. 2
16. "ACLU Move For Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (29 June 1971), p. 5
17. ^ "License Suit Lost By Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (15 December 1971), p. 7
18. "Order Halts Arrests of Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (25 September 1971), p. 2
19. ^ "S.F. Artists Win Case – Again", San Francisco Chronicle (15 October 1971), p. 1, 24
20. "Fair Weather Peddlers", San Francisco Chronicle (25 October 1971), p. 4
21. "Peddlers' Ordinance Hearing Ends", San Francisco Chronicle (7 December 1971), p. 4
22. ^ "Alioto Offers Space For Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (1 January 1972), p. 3
23. "Street Artist Crackdown Is Canceled", San Francisco Chronicle (23 December 1971), p. 1, 18
24. ^ "Peddlers Face Arrest", San Francisco Chronicle (22 December 1971), p. 3
25. "Kopp Queries Decision on Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (11 January 1972), p. 3
26. "New Street Artists Law Introduced", San Francisco Chronicle (25 January 1972), p. 3
27. "Kopp Plan For Vendor Licenses", San Francisco Chronicle (1 February 1972), p. 2
28. "New Rules for Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (24 March 1972), p. 4
29. "A Tentative Accord on Sites for Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (8 March 1972), p. 5
30. ^ "Curb Voted on Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (28 March 1972), p. 6
31. "Agency Discusses The Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (4 April 1972), p. 15
32. "The Street Artist Dispute Exhumed", San Francisco Chronicle (17 March 1972), p. 3
33. "S.F. Street Artist' New Tactic", San Francisco Chronicle (19 April 1973), p. 7
34. "Street Artists Seeking a Legal Status", San Francisco Chronicle (8 July 1973), p. 2
35. "Tally of S.F. Vote", San Francisco Chronicle (6 June 1974), p. 4
36. ^ "New S.F. Limits On Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (24 December 1974), p. 1
37. "The S.F. Street Artist Mess", San Francisco Chronicle (20 September 1974), p. 4
38. ^ "Crackdown On Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (6 December 1974), p. 1
39. ^ "Street Artists Gain Time", San Francisco Chronicle (7 December 1974), p. 1
40. ^ "Artists Meet Supervisors – It's Friendly", San Francisco Chronicle (22 November 1975), p. 2
41. "Ordinance on Street Artist Rules Stalled", San Francisco Chronicle (31 December 1974), p. 4
42. ^ "Artists Busted as Trumpet Blasts", San Francisco Chronicle (29 May 1975), p. 1
43. "Board Approves The Vendor Law", San Francisco Chronicle (7 January 1975), p. 5
44. "Tougher Law on Vendors Sought", San Francisco Chronicle (10 December 1974), p. 5
45. ^ "News Furor Grows On Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (6 June 1975), p. 2
46. ^ "Moscone Vetoes Move To Limit Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (17 July 1976), p. 4
47. "Artists Rebel at City Hall", San Francisco Chronicle (15 July 1975), p. 4
48. ^ "Artist' Street Sales Petition", San Francisco Chronicle (7 August 1975), p. 3
49. "Supervisors Allow 21 Artist Locations", San Francisco Chronicle (25 November 1975), p. 4
50. "Where Street Artists Can Sell Their Crafts", San Francisco Chronicle (8 December 1975), p. 2
51. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 23.
52. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 24.
53. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. pp. 23–24.
54. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. pp. 25–31.
55. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 32.
56. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 33.
57. "Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations" (PDF). San Francisco Arts Commission. 2008. p. 39.

External links

• San Francisco Street Artists Program official website
• Photographs of the San Francisco Street Artists Program by Lyn Magnuson and others

• Art in the San Francisco Bay Area
• Visitor attractions in San Francisco, California
• Culture of San Francisco, California
• Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco
• Government of San Francisco, California
• Art fairs