Court: Murals Are Art : Ruling Extends Protection to Street Paintings

In what is widely viewed as a precedent-setting case with major implications for California muralists and visual artists, a California Court of Appeal judge has overturned an earlier decision that held that murals were not protected under a state law enacted to preserve works of art.

The case concerns the since-bulldozed “Ancient Energies” mural painted in 1980 by three East Los Streetscapers members on a wall adjoining a Boyle Heights service station. But it is also expected to have an impact on pending litigation concerning the famed Kent Twitchell mural, “Old Lady of the Freeway,” which loomed above the Hollywood Freeway near downtown Los Angeles before it was painted over to make room for billboard ads in 1986.

State appellate Judge Norman Epstein on Thursday ruled that the California Art Preservation Act of 1980--which requires owners of artworks to give artists 30 days notice to remove their works before they are destroyed--applies directly to murals as a “subset” of paintings. The case is the first in the state to focus on whether murals are covered by the act, and the decision comes after three years of litigation surrounding “Ancient Energies.” It reverses a 1989 summary judgment by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Harvey Schneider that held that murals were not protected under the act because it does not explicitly name them along with paintings, sculptures and other types of works.

“The decision elevates murals to the level of other art forms that have long been recognized as art under the act,” said Cristeta Paguirigan, one of two attorneys representing artists George Yepes, Wayne Healy and David Botello, who painted the mural next to a Shell station at the corner of Soto and 4th Street under the East Los Streetscapers name.

The majority of the 1,200-square-foot mural--commissioned by Shell Oil for about $4,000--was bulldozed in 1988 to make way for a parking lot. None of the artists were notified. Today, only about 120 square feet of the important work remain.

But while the artists involved and other muralists were celebrating their victory over the weekend, Shell is “definitely planning to appeal to the California Supreme Court,” according to Houston-based corporate spokeswoman Eydie Pengelly, who would make no further comment on the case. (The state Supreme Court has 90 days to decide whether it will rule on the case.)

Meanwhile, Paguirigan and her co-attorney Amy Neiman plan to pursue a court trial for damages of “at least $125,000,” Paguirigan said, noting that the statute authorizes damages to the artists’ reputations as a result of the loss of the work, as well as payment for the cost of the mural itself and attorneys fees.

Neiman, who is also representing top muralist Twitchell in his pending suit against Koichi Kurokawa and the Prince Hotels Inc., the building owners who had the “Old Lady of the Freeway” painted over early one Sunday morning without any warning to Twitchell, noted that Twitchell’s case had been “on hold” since the 1989 Schneider ruling but is now in line for a trial within a year.

“If (Thursday’s decision stands) then we have a clear precedent-setting case for Kent. We’re really excited,” Neiman said.

Twitchell, who will seek to have his mural on the Edgeware overpass just southeast of the Glendale Boulevard off-ramp either restored, or restored, removed and placed elsewhere (at the cost of a few hundred thousand dollars), said the Streetscapers ruling has already helped him.

“It’s nice to know that I’m an artist again,” Twitchell said. “And it’s nice to know that Michelangelo was really an artist and not just some jerk.”