Chris showed me Heidelberg earlier this summer and I had to return and see what it was all about. What I discovered was not just a bunch of junk-turned-art, but a group of people devoted to making positive change in Detroit neighborhoods through art. I love the project and their mission.

 

From the project's website, http://heidelberg.org:

 

The Heidelberg Project, bearing the name of the street on which it exists, was started in 1986 by Tyree Guyton. He was assisted by his grandfather, Sam (Grandpa) Mackey (deceased), and his former wife, Karen Guyton. Tyree was raised on Heidelberg Street and, at the age of 12, witnessed the tragic effect of the Detroit riots - from which he claims the City of Detroit never recovered. Though once racially integrated, many neighborhoods have become segregated urban ghettos characterized by poverty, abandonment, and despair.

 

Armed with a paintbrush, a broom, and neighborhood children, Guyton, Karen, and Grandpa began by cleaning up vacant lots on Heidelberg and Elba Streets. From the refuse they collected, Guyton began to transform the street into a massive art environment. Vacant lots literally became “lots of art” and abandoned houses became “gigantic art sculptures.” Guyton not only transformed vacant houses and lots, he integrated the street, sidewalks, and trees into his mammoth installation and called his work, "The Heidelberg Project", after it's location on Heidelberg Street.

 

Despite numerous awards, the city demolished parts of the Heidelberg Project installation in 1991 and again in 1999. Still, the Heidelberg Project continues to exist, evolve, and grow - providing hope and inspiration to the local community and the community of the world.

 

Today the Heidelberg Project is recognized as one of the most influential art environments in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm one who loves off the wall crazy shit, but damn.

Uh, yeah. Art. Good theme and it really presents some strong vibes for a city that needs it, but it looks tacky.

 

 

I disagree, given that taking photographs of items on public right-of-way or on lands not authorized for such installations voids any such restriction on reproduction.

...

I walked around the Heidelberg Project about 10 years ago with a buddy who was living in Detroit at the time. I was fascinated, and took a few pictures, and even had a chance to visit briefly with Tyree Guyton. Thanks for the update. I'm glad the work-in-progress is progressing.

...but it looks tacky.

 

Especially in neat and tidy Detroit.

Love it; on my Motor City list.

It seems kind of condescending and ramshackle.  Although I guess if it's the residents that are doing it.....yeesh

Like Hamtramck Disneyland, photos never do The Heidelberg Project justice. Both are well, well worth checking out in person.

I don't get it.  Providing a venue for public art is one thing, but just throwing a bunch of shit in a yard and calling it some revolutionary art project seems like bullshit to me.

I don't get it.  Providing a venue for public art is one thing, but just throwing a bunch of sh!t in a yard and calling it some revolutionary art project seems like bullsh!t to me.

 

Art is subject.  You just don't "see" it.

You can have vacant lots and abandoned houses, or you can have vacant lots with stuff on them and abandoned houses painted up.  Both look like crap, but one is everywhere in Detroit and the other is only in one place, hence "special".  Voila, "art"!

 

 

And it's doing a damn good job of it.

I liked some of those houses and some of the installations.  However the field of tires and tree of rotting stuffed animals is a real turnoff.

Uh, yeah. Art. Good theme and it really presents some strong vibes for a city that needs it, but it looks tacky.

 

 

I disagree, given that taking photographs of items on public right-of-way or on lands not authorized for such installations voids any such restriction on reproduction.

 

It's private so even driving or walking through there is actually a privilege not a right.  Even if you were to take photos driving by, he won't fuss over it.  The warning is geared towards those who enter his property, photograph his work, and intend to make profit off it.  Even so, if anyone wants to take photos, just be respectful and ask, otherwise what is the point in even coming in the first place.

 

The city made attempts to demolish because they thought it violated ordinance.  Turns out it didn't which is why it continues to stand today. 

 

 

Chris said this was a Meijer Department store last time.

I think it's fascinating. Without focusing on the particular quality of the art, I think without a doubt that it is drawing attention to the city's severe economic problems and abandonment ... and pointing out that people are still there and still investing in the neighborhood, even if it might be investment that you don't personally like. All I know is that Heidelberg gets an insane amount of buzz among the arts crowd, so if it drives visitors there and provokes thought, more power to it.

 

Detroit really seems to be developing an interesting niche in "statement art" and "statement artists". In addition to Heidelberg and "Disneyland", check out the Power House (http://powerhouseproject.com/blog/) and the Unreal Estate Agency (http://detroitunrealestateagency.blogspot.com/).

Much of The Heidelberg Project's power is contextual; you travel blocks and blocks of blighted neighborhood and then BOOM there it is, this explosion of color, form and concept. It makes the city's efforts to demolish it all the more ironic.

It is interesting. And where in the world would the city of Detroit get money to demolish this anyway? They have money to waste to tear the city down, but not invest in the city? Whoever was behind even bothering with that is a petty asshole who has no business having access to city money.

It's private so even driving or walking through there is actually a privilege not a right. Even if you were to take photos driving by, he won't fuss over it. The warning is geared towards those who enter his property, photograph his work, and intend to make profit off it.

 

It is a public street (as far as I can tell) not a private street.

 

Consequently, there is no copyright protection for architecture visible from a public right-of-way. Since a lot of this "art" is attached to a building, it's going to be considered architecture for the purposes of the copyright law. Therefore, people can come in, take whatever pictures they want from the right-of-way, and sell them for a profit.

 

Also, as Sherman pointed out, he may not have a valid copyright in some of the non-architecture either. It's implied that he doesn't own some of the vacant lots. Any attempt to enforce copyright would be tenuous at best.