Life In Northampton

A story on the front page of the local newspaper sums up life in Northampton:

Taking their art to the streets -- Northampton policy about-face allows art sales on city sidewalks (Dan Crowley, Daily Hampshire Gazette, 9/28906)

The Heresy Collective [Warning: Sound], and perhaps a slew of other artists, will soon be allowed to sell their artwork on the city's streets, according to public works officials.

In a precedent-setting move, Robert C. Reckman, chairman of the Board of Public Works, said Wednesday that the board planned to develop a new policy paving the way for the street sale of 'fine arts.'

'We believe there is a strong constitutional argument that the sale of fine art by the artist is protected by the First Amendment,' Reckman told seven of the collective's nine young members at Wednesday's board meeting.

Reckman added that 'only fine arts, such as original painting, prints, sculpture and photography' would be covered, not 'goods, wares, and other merchandise in the normal sense.'

'We do not believe that this protection extends to crafts or decorative arts in this context,' he said....

Earlier this month, city attorney Janet Sheppard issued a memo to the board stating that, in her opinion, the sale of art, on all public streets and sidewalks in the city, including Main Street, was not allowed under the city ordinances or the Constitution.

Board of Public Works members then asked for an opinion from Northampton lawyer William C. Newman, director of the western regional office of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts....

The Heresy Collective's members said they looked forward to working with the board, and were excited to see the city backing artists. But they also expressed several concerns, including how public works officials might define 'fine arts.' In addition to paintings, drawings, and literature, the collective creates and sells original recorded music, which some of its members consider art.

That a bunch of low-life no-talent artists group together and call themselves the "Heresy Collective" we can pass off without much comment. They're really sticking it to the man, man.

That the Board Of Public Works asked the City's lawyer for her opinion, got it, didn't like it and then asked the ACLU does show some initiative. If they only showed that much initiative filling pot holes, or fixing the bridge that lost its railing last year. I'm sure they'll get right to it, once they move past the trivial point of defining "art."

What I'm a little curious about is how they expect this new regulation to work. The heart of the First Amendment is that the government cannot treat speech differently based on its content. On the other hand, commercial speech has less protection than noncommercial speech. But all this art is, by definition, for sale. If the same picture is painted on two pieces of cloth, one of which is framed and the other of which is a t-shirt, is the first saleable but not the second? Is scrawling "War Is Not The Answer" art if it's on canvass but crafts if it's on polymer clay earrings? What is "fine art" and how is the cop on the beat supposed to know?

Apparently, all the answers are here: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.