By Claire Davenport
On December 17, a note went up in the elevator at 233 West 83rd Street.
“Many neighbors are aware that my sculptures have been removed from the front of the building,” it began. “Here are some scraps I was able to collect as they were being chiseled off.”
The “scraps” were shown at the bottom of the note in a photo of the sculptures – a mix of stylized gargoyles of humans and animals, including an alligator and the head of a ram. Some neighbors reacted to their removal with anger, even tears.
One Upper West Sider emailed West Side Rag in indignation: “These sculptures were destroyed by officials of some kind, with no notice,” adding, “Such a brutal thing to do.”
G. Augustine Lynas, the sculptor behind the gargoyles and author of the elevator note, told the Rag in an interview that he started working on the sculptures in 1978, a year after he moved into the building. He made them of oil clay, a medium prized by sculptors for its pliability that allows for easy shaping and fine details.
But, “Oil clay melts in summer heat and freezes in winter,” causing the sculptures to crack periodically. When that would happen, or when the figures became dirty, Lynas would rework and replace them, something he did several times over the decades.
Lynas acknowledged that he never got official permission to put the clay gargoyles on the building, yet his art adorned the columns of the facade, undisturbed, for nearly half a century – until their sudden removal last month, with no word of warning. Lynas says he learned about the removal from a neighbor’s mother, who phoned him and said her daughter was in tears about the loss.
“They were pretty dirty, so I wasn’t very upset that they were removed,” says Lynas. “But I wish they had said something to me.”
Lynas says he made ten to twelve figures for each of the 14 columns that frame the entrance and windows of the building’s facade. He says he took care not to damage the columns, draping his sculptures over the flat tops of the column capitals. “Oil clay can stick to stone with enough pressure,” he explains.
Though most of the gargoyles were quickly removed, Lynas managed to salvage 29 of them, all somewhat damaged. Lynas thinks the figures were taken down to prepare the area around the entrance for painting. The Rag reached out to LTN Capital LLC, which owns the building, but a contact with the company said the firm declined to comment about the removal.
Some building residents protested the loss. “The sculptures are way better than boring capitals” on the facade columns, one wrote on Lynas’s elevator note. “The whole neighborhood loves them.”
But Lynas has been more sanguine. “They were never meant to be permanent,” he told the Rag. “Not even we are permanent. We are ephemeral in nature, and my art is the same.”
In fact, ephemeral art is a specialty for Lynas. A self-identified “guerilla artist,” he has made temporary sculptures using everything from snow to cement mixers. A short film was made about his sand sculpting in 2017.
More permanent works by Lynas can be seen in several New York City parks, including the weathervane atop the Central Park Carousel and the concrete sandpit in River Run Playground at Riverside Park. Both were the result of commissions with the city in the late 1990s, though Lynas noted that the sand pit was originally a neighborhood-inspired project.
Lynas has plans for the damaged gargoyles he salvaged from his building’s facade. He gave one to the neighbor who cried about their removal (she chose a serpentine head, which Lynas cleaned and mounted for her), but he says he’ll turn the rest into a new sculpture.
As for the columns at 233 West 83rd Street, Lynas wrote in his elevator note that he hopes he’ll be given the chance to restore their capitals to what they might have looked like in 1892 when they were built. “I take care of everywhere I live. I don’t like ugly,” he says.
This time, though, he’s going through the official processes. He’s already reached out about the project to a number of relevant city agencies and organizations focused on historical preservation, including the Department of Buildings, the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and the New York Historical.
Subscribe to WSR’s free email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
LTN Capital LLC owns and maintains the building.
As a renter Lynas has no claim or rights to maintain/decorate the buidling facade.
I have lived on that block for 60 years, and have known Gerry, and almost every tenant of that building, for decades.
What you and sandro fail to consider is that NO ONE – not one single tenant – had any issue with the gargoyles. In fact, most were proud to have them on the building. Had there been complaints, that would be a different thing. But there weren’t . And even when that block was included in the new Upper West Side Historic District, the gargoyles were “grandfathered” in.
Legal or not, this was an unnecessary and mean-spirited act by the building owners. Period.
This attitude is exactly why NYC is dying as a vibrant place for people to make beautiful and interesting things.
And I say this as a lawyer.
This attitude is exactly why the democratic party lost the American People. The right of ownership is a fundamental aspect of capitalism and of being an American. If you attach something to someone else’s property without permission it is vandalism not art.
And I say this as a voter.
So as a lawyer, you believe that one’s individual right of making “beautiful and interesting things” (not subjective at all btw…) is superior to another individual’s private property rights? I truly assume you must not be a corporate attorney…
well thank you for pointing out the obvious. You do realize that everyone knows what you just posted already. You missed the point that these had been allowed for 50 years and then without warning removed.
No one said he did, and neither did he say he did. What is your point? Are you trying to show off your juvenile “legalese,” or just let us know you have no taste and no appreciation for other people’ artistic talents? By the way, if the art was there for several decades and a previous building owner allowed it to remain, and the artist was given no advanced notice of the removal of his work, he may indeed have a legal challenge against the building owner for vandalism or damage to his art, unless his art work was specifically spelled out in the building contract as being sold with the building, which I doubt it was. It might have been considered on loan to the building; and therefore they might be liable for damage to the art work. He’s a noted artist and sculptor with several valuable public works. So, put that in your hat, dude.
Sam, you can disagree without the disrespect, I often enjoy your comments, you are better than this.
Have placed in hat.
Thanks for weighing in, Mr. Scrooge.
The silver lining is that this gave us another great Westside Rag story about UWS history and residents! Glad some could be salvaged, and management publicly shamed.
*West Side* Rag
Too many regulations, inspections, and red tape to maintain decorations, moldings.
As the mother of two grown daughters, I would like to thank Mr Lynas for the sand pit at River Run playground, which gave our growing family hundreds of hours of joy over the years. Whimsical yet comfortable – who could ask for anything more?
A typical act of vandalism, too typical of the developers and management agents of the UWS. The cost of thoughtful restoration would be minimal over the long term; the cost of destruction is permanent loss of our cultural heritage.
Why? WHY?!
Little by little everything wonderful thing about NYC is being chipped away one piece at a time. And we’re left more and more with blah, expensive, characterless blah. But somehow the stress level never goes away.
I HATE what’s being done to NYC!
(And please – spare me the “Oh yeah – well – if you don’t like it live somewhere else” b*ullsh*t)
How about displaying them in the lobby or UWS museum or gallery? Apparently though it was a nice thing to do, these items were not original to the building.
Excellent piece. Thanks.
The OPOC comment below is DESPICABLE!! Lynas should have been contacted before the gargoyles were removed! Perhaps a negotiated settlement could have been reached. But, money is power…. BOOOO!!!!
“Lynas acknowledged that he never got official permission to put the clay gargoyles on the building.” If one of these fell off and hurt someone going in or out of the building (a Google map picture shows the gargoyles around the front door, I can’t tell if they are on any higher floors) Lynas is picking up the defense expenses and paying the fines and personal injury judgement against the building? Taking them off seems to be a prudent move to me, after all, accidents tend to happen without warning). I am surprised they were up as long as they were.
Let’s just give the owners the benefit of a doubt and assume that they were acting in good faith to follow Local Law 11, which mandates regular inspection, maintenance and repair of building exteriors to prevent injury to passersby — let’s just assume that for a moment. What’s unforgivable is their insensitivity in failing to inform Mr Lynas of their intention to strip the building of the gargoyles, and to work out a solution that would have retained the artworks while ensuring their stability. Maybe cementing them more securely? My landmarked building is currently undergoing extensive (and noisy) exterior repairs but the owner has insisted that its distinctive details — medallions, etc., — be retained and stabilized. That’s responsive ownership and concern for the character of the neighborhood.
How and when did it become expected that a property owner should reach out to anyone who modified his property without permission to inform them about his plan to reverse the modifications? Once a property owner becomes aware of a dangerous condition, he is obligated to mitigate the danger immediately. There is no time to “work out a solution” with the artist. In a lawsuit, one of the first things that would be established is when he became aware and how quickly he acted.
No time to work out a solution? The sculptures have been there, in full view, since 1978. Seems like half a century is enough time to make a plan for the preservation of something that so many people apparently enjoyed.
Think for a minute about what you’re saying. The owner didn’t have 50 years to make a plan because the artist didn’t engage with the owner when he decided to make the modifications. Like many events, this situation was under the radar for a long time…until it wasn’t. From then until now is the only relevant timeframe during which the owner determined that he had an obligation to cure the deficiencies for safety reasons. People need to stop telling owners how to manage their properties especially when they only seek benefits without bearing any risks.
Correct.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/realestate/hunting-gargoyles-and-other-architectural-treasures.html This is terrific
What joy to use one’s abilities to enrich the day-to-day world for all! Thank you, Mr. Lynas.
Kudos to Mr. Lucas for his gentle, measured response, which was devoid of any rancor, ego, or ill-will. Although possibly not required from a legal standpoint, it would have been a nice thing for the managing agent to have been in touch with him so as to find out the best way to remove the gargoyles without damaging them.
Fun fact— these charming sculptures by Lynas are not “gargoyles” but “grotesques.” Gargoyles are water spouts for drains.
Ginny – Actually, the term gargoyle is defined as follows in Miriam Webster. The use in the article is a correct usage. See the he secondary definition below.
a: a spout in the form of a grotesque human or animal figure projecting from a roof gutter to throw rainwater clear of a building
b: a grotesquely carved figure
Fun facts are fun! 🙂
Stop with the facts.
People get upset.
Ahhh Obviously, YOU are getting upset
As well you should
No notifying the removal is a cowardly act
and now everyone knows
Guarantee it’s an LLC who owns it now. Corporate landlords ruined the Upper West Side.
I don’t see what the form of ownership has to do with this situation. Individual owners also put their properties in LLCs. An LLC is nothing more than a vehicle for protecting assets other than those contained in the LLC.
These were indeed lovely but sadly a noncompliant addition to the facade. The DOB has been aggressively enforcing everything related to facade maintenance, which keeps residents, visitors and passersby safe from falling materials.
They were on the building long before landmark status was established.
Irrelevant if they are made of and or/attached with materials not approved by the DOB (and the article suggests that’s exactly the case).
It is possible that this might violate the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, which was recently upheld in the 5 Pointz decision. Not that the artist seems to be looking to litigate but as a means to a negotiation.
Does it apply to an artist’s work if it’s on private property and was installed without permission? VARA has limitations and this might be out if its purview.
I was just thinking about VARA! Not sure it applies this retrospectively, though.
So what’s the problem? The artist himself says they were old and dirty. They need to be removed to paint the building. He wasn’t notified?
Yeah duh. And if one fell and injured someone??? He broke every rule.
Gerry Lynas’ gargoyles were the crowning glory at the corner of our block. I would always stop to see if any new fantasy creatures were added, or perhaps a gargoyle of Gandhi or Roosevelt (which had adorned the facade years ago) was returned to the column. Each was a total delight and something I’d often point out to passersby who walked by, not noticing the unique creatures flanking the building entrance. As president of the W. 83 St. block association, I’d say Gerry’s gargoyles, across from our signature kiosk, were a treasure to all. It’s a shame these whimsical creations weren’t respected when the building was under repair. We miss them and hopefully they will return to continue to delight young and old. Go Gerry!
Glad to see NYC government so passionately focused on this issue.
The grotesques on that building are part of the neighborhood tour I have given out-of-towners since the 80s. I was lucky enough to see Mr Lyn as at work once, repairing some after a spate of vandalism. I am delighted to learn that he is the same artist who brought us the dragon sandpit at River Run Playground.
They could’ve at least posted a note that this was about to take place, to allow for the removal without damage, instead of demolishing them without notice. Being in the right legally does not always mean one is being in the right morally or ethically or … well … just as a reasonable caring human being may do. If they wanted to remove these, there were gentler way of doing so, even on whatever whim or timetable the owners of the building had.
“ Oil clay melts in summer heat”
Am I missing something or it is completely unsafe to have something melting over your head?
And what is it with these hysterical comments booing other posters, and calling their comments, that are nothing but facts, despicable?
Because grown men and women often turn into emotional children whenever anyone disagrees with them. Nobody wants debate or discussion. They want to shame and shut down opposition, no matter how well reasoned the opposing argument.
I’m with OPOE. The guy admitted he was wrong, they were old and dirty, etc. It’s like someone complaining about having their license taken away after admitting to breaking some traffic laws. Gotta stop at the stop signs so no one gets hurt
Don’t these gargoyles have squatter’s rights?
An alternate headline could be “pedestrian gravely injured by falling stone”. I feel bad this man lost his work but placed it in a risky environment.
‘Such a Brutal Thing To Do’
Is it really? To remove objects that are hanging over your head, slapped somehow without following proper installation procedure, is a brutal thing?
They did not “hang over someone’s head.” They were nowhere near the actual entrance doors to the building. If one had fallen, it would have fallen on the furthermost part of the steps or into the basement catchment area.
Don’t these gargoyles have squatte rights?
Let’s see if West Side Rag has a sense of humor?
This from a friend who was on the Landmarks Commission: if the sculptures were up there before the building was landmarked, it was illegal to remove them.
The building wasn’t landmarked. The building was there when an historic district was established. But that alone doesn’t grant absolute protection.
Permission or not, the building was landmarked in 2012 and that designation INCLUDED the sculptures. They were landmarked and therefore removed illegally.
If that’s correct, it illustrates how absurd some of the landmarking rules are.
The narcissism and the superiority complex of UWSers are on full display here.
Imagine if the same issue was presented as “unlawfully installed sculptures finally removed”.
Then the same crowd will burst into indignation about why it took so long to remove them.
Herd mentality at its finest.
Property owner rights must be protected. They are the backbone of our city.
Heaven preserve us from artists who think their art will enhance their buildings. I live in an UWS building. I have artists as fellow shareholders. Occasionally, one of them will suggest that their artwork should be put up. That sounds nice — but it often isn’t. The egos of artists and the opinions of tenants who believe that every space must be filled with something can be destructive, even if the art is “nice.” Leave the building design, often minimalist and lovely, in peace.
Agree.
Let’s set aside that Gerry has contributed more art and art-based things to the UWS than anyone else: he created the new playground at 83rd Street, building that amazing sandbox and river feature by hand; he (and I and several others) originally put up the kiosk across the street, which remains a showcase for local artists, and which is primarily maintained by Gerry; and he created and installed the “grotesques” on his own building.
Let’s also set aside that, according to LPC law, the fact that the grotesques were in place when the Upper West Side Historic District was designated means that they are not simply “grandfathered” in, but cannot be removed without the owner filling out the proper paperwork.
Let’s also set aside the fact that the grotesques were NOT “over the doorway” (such that if one fell, it might hit someone), but at the furthest point FROM the doorway, and that there has not been a single “incident in 50+ years.
And finally, let’s set aside that there has not been a SINGLE complaint about the grotesques, either from tenants or anyone else in over 50 years.
At very least, Gerry deserved some notice, even legally (per the LPC), before they were so mean-spiritedly removed. This is actually vandalism on the part of the OWNER, and Gerry should sue under LPC law, under the VARA Act of 1990, and under any other law, statute, or regulation that applies here.
Kudos to Lynas for his measured and mature response. The real culprit here is FISP/LL11, which continues to require onerous inspections and “repairs” every five years in the name of “safety”.
It’s understandable that any facade engineer would want these removed right away. And same with the landlord, who is taking all of the liability if these ever fell on someone. Ideally the renter and the owner and the engineer could find a way to properly anchor these, but the laws don’t incentivize that kind of thing.
Why do People think they have a say in what owners of private can do with their property? Some guy takes it upon himself to put something he thinks is cool on the property of others and when the owners remove it they are bad people and the person who put this on the walls is a victim. This is not a communist country, it’s not the people’s building. Capitalism works, give it a try.
Nothing lasts forever.
He’s lucky they lasted as long as they did.
I would so love one of them myself! Beautiful!
“No right” to add art? But plenty of rights for people to litter all over the place? What an upside down world.
There is litter in front of all buildings and every building is responsible for cleaning up in front of their buildings. Where are the officials there? When people make things look worse, litterying, scaffolding- no action, but when someone tries to make something look better– the legalize comes out. (check out The Urban Gansta Gardener, inspiring story of making something look better vs “right to” )
Take the trash, leave the art.
It’s indeed a shame. But the city is making sure that facades don’t fall on people. They are doing it to other buildings regarding bricks. Although the tenants may not have an issue, if a passerby gets hurt….
It could have been handled better. No surprise there.
Why is everything so absolutist? No, he had no legal right to add his art to the building. Yes, they were pretty cool – and obviously, at least most of the people who lived there liked it. Yes, the owner has the right to remove them, and maybe it was a compliance issue. Yes, the owner could have been nice and warned him, rather than treating it like trash, especially after the sculptures were there for so many years. (I wonder whether there’s a concept of adverse possession for sculpture . . . . Certainly, some expectations developed.) Things are almost never black and white. Which is hard to cope with, of course, but we’re intelligent people, we can do it.
It becomes absolutist when the liability shifts to only one party, the owner. This is an example of people wanting the benefit but are not willing to share in the consequences.