Operating an aerial lift, Megan Craig stood three stories high painting salt water marshes on the upper levels of Cold Spring School, a progressive independent school on James Street in New Haven. With a projector shining the image on to the side of the building, Craig drew the images of the native plants while students gathered around to join in on the nighttime party. This was just one day out of the 6-month long project where Craig would come out and work with students to paint the building. 

There are many forms of art that can be found whether it is commissioned, a mural, a sculpture, a tribute or a tag, artists are just looking to express themselves or their views.  With cities and local communities beginning to endorse and commission works of art throughout town, public art and graffiti battle to find a balance. 

Craig was a parent of one of the students at the school and  after noticing the bricked-over windows at Cold Spring School, Craig decided to reach out and suggested painting a mural on the wall. She had previously worked with an organization called CITYarts in New York, where artists work with local public schools to create public art. 

“It seemed very unfortunate to have a building in that neighborhood that had this sort of fortress-prison like quality with these concrete openings,” Craig said.

The mural depicts the different types of salt marshes that are native to the area and the different types of wildlife that abide there. The fifth graders at the school also spend a large chunk of time studying the salt marshes as a part of their curriculum. Craig and the students worked on an interactive sign where all the plants and animals featured in the painting can be found. It was critical that the project was able to tie back into the curriculum for the community to get on board. 

“The idea was to make a mural that could also be sort of a learning wall,” said Craig. “I think once we were able to tie the mural into the curriculum, especially the teachers were a lot more excited about it and, and it really kind of gained momentum.”

Although the school was on board with the idea of a mural, the vibe of the community was still mixed. While some people were enthusiastic about the idea of the painting others felt like the area was fine the way it was. 

“I think a lot of people were very enthusiastic ” Craig said. “And were sort of like, yes, anything’s better than these concrete block windows. But there were several people who felt like the block was actually fine and it was this very quiet kind of serene facade and why mess with that? So it was a mixed kind of reaction.”

With community projects, Craig has found it vital to make sure that the members of the community feel involved in the process.  This fall, Craig worked on a geometric painting on Pearl Street that led up to the Yale School of Management. In order to make the neighborhood to feel included in the design process, she made numerous designs for the community to choose from and presented them over several meetings with the neighborhood. 

New Haven communities have been working with local organizations to commission murals across the city, including the New Haven and the Cedar Hill murals.

Along the same lines, Hartford has been working on a new initiative to work with local artists called Paint the City. The project worked with the communities to pick the designs that would win the competition. Seven were chosen as the beginning of the 14 mural project that the city was hoping to see. The city had put $128,000 into the project as a part of the public-improvement initiative Hartford Decides.

As a private school, Cold Spring School was able to decide whether they wanted to commission a mural on the side of their building without having to ask for permission from state or city officials. When it comes to public property though there are rules and regulations that artists must follow. 

Hartford artist Corey Pane has been commissioned to work on a lot of public and private property throughout his career and hit multiple roadblocks when it comes to getting a building approved. 

“A lot of times when I’ve done stuff through the city, you have to go through the city,” Pane said. “There’s paperwork, you have to get permits, get permission from the mayor and all that stuff takes forever. So there’s been a couple of times where I almost had a wall and I’ve been really excited about it and just kind of fizzles out because the paperwork or like somebody didn’t allow permission or something.”

While commissioned work and community art projects are well received, there are still concerns about tagging, where an individual will use a symbol or series of symbols to mark their territory. On SeeClickFix, a public forum where residents can go and voice their concerns regarding numerous topics, there have been plenty of concerns about graffiti popping up around New Haven.
One user pointed out the symbol of three circles forming a triangle on numerous spots around New Haven. 

“I’ve seen a surge in this type of graffiti / tagging across new haven,” SeeClickFix user Winchester-Dixwell-Community said. “I’m assuming it’s gang related. It has surged in the last two weeks so I’m wondering what’s going on. I wish the city would step in swiftly clean this type of tagging.”

Though the city has rules and regulations in place, some residents feel as though they aren’t moving fast enough to clean up the city. In response to one of the posts about graffiti a user commented advice on how to clean it up. 

“I bought some graffiti removal wipes on Amazon,” Winchester-Dixwell-Community said. “They work really well. I got tired of waiting for the city to clean up the graffiti in my neighborhood (they never do). You might have to do the same.”

While graffiti can bring life and beauty to a city, it also costs the city a lot of money to clean up. New Haven budgets approximately $30,000 a year to cleaning up paint around the city, according to the Livable City Initiative Downtown/Wooster Neighborhood specialist, Carmen Mendez. 

“Unfortunately, no sooner do we clean it up before another graffiti artist thinks it’s a clean canvass for their graffiti,” Mendez said. “It is a vicious cycle that the City loses time and time again. There are more graffiti artists then there is money to clean it up.”

Graffiti goes against the anti-blight and property maintenance laws. The law states that when considering  “the foundation walls of every building,” “the exterior of buildings,” “fences” and “storefronts,” have to remain free of any graffiti. 

“Even if we know who the graffiti artist is, unless we catch them in the act or have a picture that ties them to the graffiti, we can do nothing,” Mendez said. “The penalties are stiff per graffiti piece, and we do prosecute. However, to get them to pay, let’s say $9-15,000.00 takes a long time, even when the judges rule in our favor.”

As local neighborhoods begin to raise money for murals around town, many are left to wonder what the difference is between paid art and free art? What’s the difference between street art and graffiti? John O’Grodnick, a visual artist based out of New York City believes the difference is only found  in the legality of where the art is placed. 

The main difference between Street art/Murals and Graffiti is that Most of the time street art is legally and paid by the owner of the building,” O’Grodnick said. “Graffiti is almost always done illegally or without permission and that’s why it’s looked down upon.”

The moral dilemma is finding the line to draw in between expression and defamation. While art can be beautiful and liven up a city or town, can it cross a boundary? And where is that boundary?

“I never think it’s a good idea to, to paint on somebody’s property, you know, as people who are property owners who have to deal with graffiti,” said Craig. “But I do think there should be more open areas for street art where people do not have to get permits, do not have to get permission and have access to big surfaces that they can express themselves in an urban environment.”

Heaven Skate Park: Museum of Public Art, located in Hartford, allows for artists to freely paint across the grounds of the park. There are no rules or regulations regarding who can paint what or where.

“I would say just let it all happen,” said Pane. “I don’t care. Like even like little tags and stuff. If you just do other stuff and it’s like a building that it’s not really bothering you. I don’t see a problem.”

While members of the community work together to clean up graffiti or tags that they don’t feel represent their area well, there are still many works of art around town that portray the culture and life of those around them. With murals and commissioned work popping up around town like the “Greetings from New Haven” and “Welcome to Cedar Hill,” there is an acknowledgement that art, commissioned or not, does bring pride and joy into the community.

By Jake Ziegler

Alabama’s all-American quarterback Tua Tagovailoa is one of the biggest names in college sports not only because of the reputable football program he plays for, but also because of his extraordinary talent on the field. College athletes, such as Tagovailoa, have collectively put on a show for spectators nationwide in their respective sports. According to CBS Sports’ Chip Patterson, the University of Alabama’s football department alone accounted for $108.2 million in revenue and $45.9 million in profit.

Suppose Tagovailoa has an incredible season and contributes to winning a national championship title for the school. As a result, he wants to make money off selling his jersey since he’s a champion that served one of the most important positions on a football team for a successful school. At the same time, many advertisers, such as Gatorade, want to use Tagovailoa’s image and likeness in its next commercial about a new sports drink product. All of these offers scream dollar signs in the back of Tagovailoa’s head.

Despite that, Tagovailoa couldn’t take advantage of any of these money-making opportunities without violating any National Collegiate Athletic Association policy for student-athletes. No matter the team, division, program, sport or accomplishments attached to their name, no college athlete was permitted to make any sort of profit through participating in college sports. But, by the same token, several entities earn millions of dollars off this industry, including the universities, coaches and the NCAA. The student-athletes themselves have never received any portion of that revenue, and they still don’t. However, all college athletes, especially ones like Tagovailoa, have been provided a potential game-changer by the NCAA.

The NCAA’s Board of Governors voted unanimously to permit college athletes to profit off their name, image and likeness on Oct. 29. This announcement arrives less than one month after the state of California passed SB 206, signed into law by governor Gavin Newsom, which contained similar terms and conditions for their college athletes.

According to the NCAA’s press release, Ohio State University President and Chair of Board Michael Drake said the NCAA instructed all three divisions to begin making revisions with this new change into account. In addition, the NCAA expects these divisions to have their new rules come into effect immediately, but no later than January 2021.

“We must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes,” Drake said in the release.

Comprehensive recommendations for this policy change influenced the NCAA Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group. This group is comprised of presidents, commissioners, athletics directors, administrators and student-athletes.

The NCAA, however, is mandating that this policy change must be enforced in a “manner consistent with the collegiate model.” The governing body also reminds the college sports world of some principles and guidelines that student-athletes still must adhere to. These include: “student-athletes are not considered university employees, they cannot receive compensation for participating in athletics and that there’s a clear distinction between collegiate and professional opportunities.”

NCAA President Mark Emmert justifies this decision while emphasizing the fact that its fundamental belief in amateurism will still be implemented in college sports.

“As a national governing body, the NCAA is uniquely positioned to modify its rules to ensure fairness and a level playing field for student-athletes,” Emmert said in the NCAA’s press release. “The board’s action today creates a path to enhance opportunities for student-athletes while ensuring they compete against students and not professionals.”

With this in mind, if this policy was in effect during that hypothetical Alabama championship run, Tagovailoa would likely be able to pocket money from selling his jersey to consumers and engaging in commercial offers from advertisers wanting to use his name, image and likeness.

This issue of college athletes profiting from their name, image and likeness first came to light in the U.S. justice system during the antitrust class action lawsuit called O’Bannon v. NCAA. Former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon filed this lawsuit on behalf of all Division I men’s basketball and football programs against the NCAA, challenging the use of images of its former student-athletes for commercial purposes. O’Bannon’s primary argument is that upon graduation, student-athletes should be entitled to financial compensation for the NCAA’s commercial use of their image. This is because, if not, it would violate the terms and conditions of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. However, the NCAA’s response said that amateurism and its principles are upheld and maintained in these cases.

This case came about after O’Bannon saw his likeness from the 1995 UCLA championship team used in the Electronic Arts Sports video game titled NCAA Basketball 09 without his permission. The game featured an unnamed UCLA player that matched several of O’Bannon’s playing characteristics, including his power forward position, height, weight, bald head, skin tone, No. 31 jersey and left-handed shot.

District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in favor of O’Bannon, holding that the NCAA’s policies and rules “operate as an unreasonable restraint of trade” and in fact violates antitrust law. She ordered that schools should be allowed to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships to athletes, covering cost-of-living expenses that were not currently part of NCAA scholarships. Wilken also ruled that college be permitted to place as much as $5,000 into a trust for each athlete per year of eligibility. The NCAA subsequently appealed the ruling, arguing that Wilken did not properly consider NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. In that case, the NCAA was denied control of college football television rights, but the court also stated: “To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid.”

Professor at Bob Jones University Tony Miller thinks this case is going to be the foundation of what created all this controversy.

“Even though (O’Bannon) wasn’t the first to have this happen to him, this will be the case that California legislation have an influence on how we view this issue now,” Miller said.

The U.S. Sports Academy Doctoral candidate also played EA Sports video games in his childhood, and like O’Bannon, would easily identify all the players.

“I would know who was each player based on their height and weight even though none of the players’ jerseys didn’t have name plates on the back,” Miller said. “I would upload players’ last names from memory cards onto the game and insert them on the players’ jerseys.”

Miller also doesn’t think the NCAA had any good intentions behind making this announcement, and that the timing of such was inevitable.

“The NCAA wasn’t going to do anything unless they felt pressured by other forces,” Miller said. “They would probably continue with the traditional amateurism model if the California law didn’t come to light.”

From the athlete side of this, senior forward from Quinnipiac men’s soccer Eamon Whelan says he plays a sport that’s not a big money-maker, though he likes the change.

“Coaches and colleges are making a lot of money and I think the athletes deserve a lot of it because they’re a huge reason for that,” Whelan said.

Senior midfielder from Quinnipiac women’s lacrosse Victoria Bobinski concurs with Whelan, as she believes lacrosse doesn’t have a lot of money either. However, she also thinks there needs to be a lot of rules behind the policy.

“There should be a percentage limit of what athletes can make because there can be a huge gap between a top-tier university versus a small school that gets no recognition,” Bobinski said. “I think there needs to be a level playing field, especially when it comes to the differences between men’s and women’s sports.”

From the coaching standpoint, University of Connecticut women’s ice hockey head coach Chris Mackenzie is in the neutral zone when it comes to his stance on the policy.

“I’m not for it, but I’m not against it, either,” Mackenzie said. I’m very interested in seeing where the NCAA goes with it because this topic has certainly warranted attention.”

Mackenzie pointed out that UConn likely has 10 or less athletes that will be affected by this policy because he believes only basketball and football stars at top schools will take advantage of this rule. Whelan and Bobinski voiced similar thoughts, as well.

However, Mackenzie has formulated a unique, creative way for women’s hockey players to make money off their name, image and likeness off the ice.

“I think student-athletes going back home and creating a hockey school for themselves is something they can profit from,” Mackenzie said. “You can train, have a camp and make money all at the same time.”

On the other hand, Quinnipiac women’s soccer head coach Dave Clarke says his viewpoint is “three-fold” coming from a former college athlete, coach and outsider. However, he thinks the NCAA’s mission might become jeopardized.

“I understand why it’s in place, but I also think that we have to maintain the integrity of Division I athletics and having players going to school to prioritize their education,” Clarke said.

Quinnipiac sports economics professor Donn Johnson has been in favor of this change for a long time.

“The amateurism model has been there for over 100 years, and I think that’s starting to change,” Johnson said.

Johnson supports letting the economic factors play their role, even in college sports.

“I think the market forces and politicians are finally telling the NCAA to address this,” Johnson said. “At this point, they knew they were stuck.”

He also thinks the NCAA is corrupt and unethical all along for not allowing college athletes to profit off themselves.

“From a moral standpoint, you’re taking revenue they generate and keeping it for yourself and others for your own salaries,” Johnson said. “They should get paid for the value they create.”

Associate professor of sports management at the Ohio State University David Ridpath notes the hypocrisy the NCAA has showed in the sense that it gives off the impression that  “the world would end” if college athletes could profit off their own brand. And now, they’re “singing a different tune.”

“The NCAA would have never been progressive enough or unselfish enough to make this change on their own,” Ridpath said.

Ridpath believes the NCAA uses terms like amateurism and collegiate model to accomplish a certain agenda.

“The current model cannot sustain and things like amateurism and collegiate model do not exist and are terms of art used to restrict basic rights,” Ridpath said.

Ridpath also mentioned the NCAA has a hidden agenda they’re pursuing based on three falsely promoted myths.

“The NCAA is based on academic integrity, amateurism and competitive equity,” Ridpath said. “Overall, none of these exist and are used to perpetuate public relations so others can get rich.”

Despite these NCAA criticisms, Ridpath says its core value should reflect Pulitzer Prize-winning author Taylor Branch’s famous line: “You first deal with the athletes rights—everything else is an adjustment.”

That said, he and many others like where the NCAA is headed.

“It’s a big, needed step, but there are many questions still to be answered,” Ridpath said.

And the public is expecting those questions to be answered on or before January 2021. Topics that should be answered by the NCAA include any cap limit, what’s permissible to profit from, its effect on the athlete recruiting process, the athletic contracts’ conditions and any major differences between sport, sex and division level. At this point, coaches, athletes, fans, administrators and the rest of the college sports world eagerly await to see what transpires from here.