Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Cover Boy Charlie

June's Winter Park Magazine Cover

The Briar Patch Cafe, Winter Park ,oil/canvas, Artist: Charles Dickinson

Art In The Market artist Charles Dickinson has been travelling recently going to various locations by invitation, painting en plein air ( on location). ARTICLE

Another of our artists Dean Quigley, just spent the last 21 days as artist in residence completing ten paintings for the 450th birthday in Pensacola, Florida. ARTICLE

It is hoped that one day the City of St. Augustine will embrace it's talented artists who paint and display outdoors. At this time, the city has a Federal Court restraining order preventing them from arresting and jailing our Art In The Market artists. We would like one day to have the city drop the adversarial attitude toward our art vendors.


  1. Anonymous03 June, 2009

    May I state he obvious? When you sue someone, and go to court, it means you have already become adversaries.
    Asking otherwise is illogical.
    The artists succeeded in the injunction. What's next on the agenda?

  2. The ball is in the city's court.

  3. Anonymous03 June, 2009

    Actually, it's in Federal Court.

    The City will always have its critics. Critics who strive for real solutions will actually come to a table and offer seriously thoughtout, legally workable suggestions. The critics in this matter are not interested in that. Even the venerable G.T. equivocates on what HE thinks the City should allow--sentiment doesn't translate easily in legal terms.

    Well prior to filing a federal suit, Cushman remained unresponsive for months to City offers to discuss a solution and cooperate.

    The City has tried to please G.T. It changed the rules just for G.T. G.T. makes a game out of kicking the City a hundred times then complaining it does not like him.

    The City and artists got along just fine until G.T. started playing games.

  4. Are you one of the persons we would speak to to reach a resolution on this? If so, you are just now getting in to this issue.

    Otherwise you would know that despite requests the city NEVER bothered communicating with the artists, other than citing and arresting us. This tends to indicate an adverserial position.

    Your language shows that you are a person who has rigid ideas on regulation and codification.

    This is not the military.You are dealing with plain citizens who do not approach life with the same book of rules that you lug around.

    Would I ticket or jail an old man who offered a few painted seashells for sale to the public? No

  5. Anonymous03 June, 2009

    Anonymious said:

    "Well prior to filing a federal suit, Cushman remained unresponsive for months to City offers to discuss a solution and cooperate."

    Says you! You keep speaking for other people. (Incorrectly at that)

  6. Anonymous03 June, 2009

    Not gonna play name calling games. It's just anyone can verify statements by checking court records. But maybe Cushman wasn't sharing everything with his clients, so his clients genuinely don't know.

    No one wants to pick on an old guy. Still yes, laws are rigid. That's why they are called laws and not "suggestions." Sorry.

    What matters is the City got rid of Burk who was the one who called for everybody to leave the plaza. The two new commissioners seem very open to artists. I'm not alone in thinking now would be a good time for everyone to come to the table.

  7. Palatka artist04 June, 2009

    Prior to Suvo, the regular visual artists (not musicians) were paying almost 1200 dollars a year for permits that were illegal.

    We were banished from St. George Street to the Plaza. Now the city is fighting to get us out of the plaza.

    Can you explain how Suvo, who insisted that years of illegal fees be refunded (and were)cause these problems? The artists are grateful for his activism.

  8. see above04 June, 2009

    Actually compared to Suvo there are more strident and angry voices among the artists.I've only seen him as levelheaded and realistic on this issue.

  9. Anonymous04 June, 2009

    Truth is mirror that has been shattered into a thousand pieces. And everyone has a piece.

    What common ground can be found?

    How about this? Everyone hates the sunglass guy. That's a starting point.

  10. Anonymous04 June, 2009

    Michael the sunglass guy is's his counterfeit products that we do not like, his littering and size of display.....what can be done?

  11. "He who possesses the mirror of truth is free from fear; he will find comfort in the tribulations of life, and his life will be a blessing to all his fellow-creatures."

  12. can somebody comment on Charles Dickinson's excellent painting?

  13. Anonymous04 June, 2009

    It seems people are responding to G.T.'s commentary under C.D's painting, particularly the federal lawsuit/adversarial stuff.

    C.D.'s work conveys a poignant message though, an escape from dark businesses to seek sidewalk illumination.

    Hope that doesn't stir the pot on getting some sidewalk tables on St. George Street!

  14. Yes Karl, I will comment on Charles' lovely painting. Dave was born and raised in Winter Park, and when I showed it to him he said "I know just where that's at!

    I'm looking forward to seeing more of Charles' new works at the Plaza.

  15. I have a question for Anonymous
    the one who is the great defender of the city .
    Just what is the Great importance of getting the artists out of the plaza ? Perhaps the city prefers the sight of the homeless urinating on the bushes or having street fights and Puking on the side walk. They prefer that then having artists in the plaza and have spent thousand upon thousands of dollars of the taxpayers money for this shining example of St Augustine’s Image.
    How much has it cost the city so far in court costs and more I’m sure to come when the other law suites come in. The city has caused the artists damage by not letting them sell there work in the plaza. You don’t think that is going away do you? The city has violated their rights. Mr. city apologist was it really worth it ? Why make a law that there was no need for to begin with. Who was behind it and why. What was the compelling reason ?
    I know the city always is concerned by the peoples business I can tell by the city meetings I have gone to . They sit in there chairs with that smug look on there face while when asked to respond to a persons questions they are too timid and answer this is not a meeting for us to respond. It is a meeting for you to have your say. Yes that’s your city Government at work . I’d love to hear your thoughts on that. I’ll be watching for your response.

  16. Anonymous04 June, 2009

    I cannot to take credit for all the anonymous posters who don't drink Greg's koolaid. But, I'll be a sport since you're watching:

    Artists in the plaza? A relatively new phenom.

    Fighting, puking, urinat[ing] in the plaza? That's down right every bit as much historically vested in this great city as horses pooping in the streets.

    Artists who can make their money, make it. Look at Quigley and Dickinson, they don't even lose sleep. Those who can, do; those who can't, sue.

    Why did the city change the laws? That would be because Greg asked them to change the law for his benefit/rights. Why has the City spent so much (we'll call it a drop in the bucket) money on lawsuits? That would be, wishy-washy, arre$t-me-please, I-ju$t-want-a-judgment Greg.

    If you don't understand the purpose of agenda items at public meetings--including public comment (note it's not called public discussion with elected officials)--then I can't easily help you here. Try a civics class for starters. As far as smug looks, could be the commission snacks on nuts and water before the meeting only to sit motionless for hours. Not good on the GI if you get my drift.

    I'll let somebody else take a crack if they're game.

  17. is it possible?.......could it be? that you Mayor Boles?

  18. Jerry Adeaus05 June, 2009

    You may be right.Joe Boles was munching on nuts all through the last commssion meeting.

  19. Anonymous05 June, 2009

    I thought the discussion was interesting until the last two posts.

  20. To my dear sporting friend the city apologist.
    I do appreciate your comments and I do enjoy the spirit of debate. I do like one that stays on point a little better than yours. I can’t tell if it is intentional like a good politician giving the old miss direction ploy or if you really have such week and misguided response.
    “ Artists in the plaza? A relatively new phenom.” your quote. Are you saying because perhaps artists in the plaza is kind of a new thing their legal rights no longer exist ?
    Is that your reasoning ? Truly remarkable.

    Lets try this quote from you. “
    Artists who can make their money, make it. Look at Quigley and Dickinson, they don't even lose sleep. Those who can, do; those who can't, sue.”

    Spot on target again ! Not ! I know both of those artists and they are very good in my opinion. But because they may or may not make more money over one artist or another on a particular day means what ? How does that square with the fact that the city has overstepped there authority once again. They have stripped the artists from there legal civil rights and the law provides a remedy. Do you have a problem with that ? Or do you feel law is whatever the city says it is and the heck with the constitution and all the rest?

    In response to my question Why make a law that there was no need for to begin with? Who was behind it and why? What was the compelling reason? You wrote .
    “Why did the city change the laws? ( NOTICE I DID NOT ASK WHY THE CITY CHANGED THE LAW I ASKED WHY PUT ONE THERE THAT WAS NOT NEEDED AND UNCONSTITUNAL TO BOOT. WHO WAS THE GENIOUS BEHIND THAT? ) That would be because Greg asked them to change the law for his benefit/rights. Why has the City spent so much (we'll call it a drop in the bucket) money on lawsuits? That would be, wishy-washy, arre$t-me-please, I-ju$t-want-a-judgment Greg.” I guess you missed the fact the city had to hire a high priced attorney when it was clear the city attorney was way over his head. How many thousands was that ? How many times has the city gone to court and lost on this matter ? You think that didn’t cost the taxpayers anything ?
    By the way Did you even notice you didn’t answer the question I asked?

    Your last point was so powerful it rocked me back in my seat and stung me for days. Yes ,yes you are right I am not an expert on public meetings. And you make a good point that it is not called public discussion with elected officials, However that has bothered me for a while how time after time the smugness that I guess you have grown accustom to just seems like they are supposed to be that way.
    I did a little checking with a friend of mine who used to be a city attorney who knew a great deal about such meetings. He said There is nothing stopping them from making comments if they wish They are not bound by law or the rules of the meeting to keep silent. They have the option to address the public if they wish. He also said there are times it may be possible that the city officials are too embarrassed or Cowardly ( my words ) to speak up.
    I will look into that civics class you recommend and you could use a course on the U.S. constitution and our civil Rights. The final comment on the peanuts and GI track, well I would agree they are full of it if you get my drift.
    You have been a real sport Mr. city apologist. I can hardly wait until you rock me back in my seat again with you laser guided answers that make so much sense and are on target.
    Thanks for the frank discussion.