Misplaced Pages

Street Artists Program of San Francisco

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by James Carroll (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 7 February 2014 (Add a subsection for 1973). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:58, 7 February 2014 by James Carroll (talk | contribs) (Add a subsection for 1973)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Unreviewed


The San Francisco Street Artists Program had its official start in June of 1972, and has since enabled locally independent artists to purchase a municipal license which allows them to sell arts and crafts of their own creation in designated selling spaces throughout the city. 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. Now 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 Artist Program begin way 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 Asbury 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 America 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 Berkeley University, 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 of artists in Aquatic Park during February of 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 legally exploit that vulnerability.

Months later in April of 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 Allioto 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. But at the end of the afternoon when the permit expired they moved from the park to 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 has 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 of 1971 as a result of the ACLU's suite, 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 resulted 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 artist program: without regulation and an enforcement strategy, any street artist 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 Art Commission, Ray Taliaferro, expressed his desire that the Art Commission should support legislation that licenses and regulates artists and musicians. In December of 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 of 1972 Mayor Allioto 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 intiate 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 then followed by submitting his own resolution to the Board of Supervisors. Within Kopp's plan the program would be run by a chief administrator, and it would be the supervisors 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 of 1972 the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal to have street artists receive their licenses through the San Francisco Art 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 worst 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 Art Commission were receptive to the supervisors' proposal. Commissioner Alec Yuill declared 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 street artists' program. Unfortunately, this would not be the first time that some members of the Art 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 had become very organized and inflexible concerning the issue of additional selling areas. Frustrated with the impasse over 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.



References

  1. http://www.sfartscommission.org/street_artists_program/ San Francisco Street Artists Web Site – SFAC
  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. http://www.sfartscommission.org/street_artists_program/Street_Artist_Bluebook.pdf, Street Artists Bluebook – Certification and Sales Space Assignment Procedures, Arts and Crafts Criteria, Regulations", 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. http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/shenandoah/Sanfransa/History.html Dennis Dooley, Tom Usher: Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore, City Miner Magazine
  8. http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/shenandoah/Sanfransa/History.html Dennis Dooley, Tom Usher: Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore, City Miner Magazine
  9. http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/shenandoah/Sanfransa/History.html Dennis Dooley, Tom Usher: Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore, City Miner Magazine
  10. http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/shenandoah/Sanfransa/History.html Dennis Dooley, Tom Usher: Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore, City Miner Magazine
  11. "Street Artists vs. Law – It's Not a Pretty Picture", San Francisco Chronicle (2 April 1971), p. 3
  12. "Street Artists vs. Law – It's Not a Pretty Picture", San Francisco Chronicle (2 April 1971), p. 3
  13. "Street Artists Attorney Testifies", San Francisco Chronicle (3 December 1971), p. 9
  14. "City Hall Protest By Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (15 April 1971), p. 2
  15. "Allioto, Friend Of the Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (16 April 1971), p. 26
  16. "Street Artists Meet the Mayor", San Francisco Chronicle (24 April 1971), p. 33
  17. "Street Artists Meet the Mayor", San Francisco Chronicle (24 April 1971), p. 33
  18. "Street Artists To Dramatize Police Beefs", San Francisco Chronicle (8 May 1971), p. 28
  19. "S.F. Street Artists Are Arrested", San Francisco Chronicle (17 May 1971), p. 2
  20. "S.F. Street Artists Are Arrested", San Francisco Chronicle (17 May 1971), p. 2
  21. "Judge's Boost for S.F. Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (18 May 1971), p. 3
  22. "More Peddler Busts", San Francisco Chronicle (20 September 1971), p. 2
  23. "ACLU Move For Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (29 June 1971), p. 5
  24. "License Suit Lost By Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (15 December 1971), p. 7
  25. "New Artists' Court Plea", San Francisco Chronicle (12 April 1974), p. 4
  26. "Order Halts Arrests of Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (25 September 1971), p. 2
  27. "S.F. Artists Win Case – Again", San Francisco Chronicle (15 October 1971), p. 1, 24
  28. "S.F. Artists Win Case – Again", San Francisco Chronicle (15 October 1971), p. 1, 24
  29. "Fair Weather Peddlers", San Francisco Chronicle (25 October 1971), p. 4
  30. "Street Artists Attorney Testifies", San Francisco Chronicle (3 December 1971), p. 9
  31. "Peddlers' Ordinance Hearing Ends", San Francisco Chronicle (7 December 1971), p. 4
  32. "Alioto Offers Space For Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (1 January 1972), p. 3
  33. "License Suit Lost By Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (15 December 1971), p. 7
  34. "Street Artist Crackdown Is Canceled", San Francisco Chronicle (23 December 1971), p. 1, 18
  35. "Peddlers Face Arrest", San Francisco Chronicle (22 December 1971), p. 3
  36. "Peddlers Face Arrest", San Francisco Chronicle (22 December 1971), p. 3
  37. "Alioto Offers Space For Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (1 January 1972), p. 3
  38. "Kopp Queries Decision on Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (11 January 1972), p. 3
  39. "New Street Artists Law Introduced", San Francisco Chronicle (25 January 1972), p. 3
  40. "Kopp Plan For Vendor Licenses", San Francisco Chronicle (1 February 1972), p. 2
  41. "New Rules for Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (24 March 1972), p. 4
  42. "A Tentative Accord on Sites for Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (8 March 1972), p. 5
  43. "Curb Voted on Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (28 March 1972), p. 6
  44. "Agency Discusses The Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (4 April 1972), p. 15
  45. "Curb Voted on Street Artists", San Francisco Chronicle (28 March 1972), p. 6
  46. "The Street Artist Dispute Exhumed", San Francisco Chronicle (17 March 1972), p. 3
  47. "S.F. Street Artist' New Tactic", San Francisco Chronicle (19 April 1973), p. 7
  48. "Street Artists Seeking a Legal Status", San Francisco Chronicle (8 July 1973), p. 2