This story originally appeared in ANTIGRAVITY Vol.5 Issue 2 (December 2007).
The Baddest Brush in Town, Part II:
Who is Winning the Color Wars in New Orleans?
In last month’s issue we attempted to describe the situation between taggers, graffiti writers, street artists and anyone who’s taken to New Orleans’ public visual space to express themselves, and their collective headache known as Fred Radtke, dubbed the “Gray Ghost” for his ubiquitous blocks of paint throughout the city (also known as “buffs” and “ghosts”). Radtke has made eradicating others’ graffiti by imposing his own a personal crusade, regardless of the law, the wishes of the community and visual aesthetics in general. In Part I we talked to a few artists who have organized efforts against Radtke, notably ReX of NoLa Rising and the Krewe of Krabkakes. These artists and the many others who take to the streets opposite Radtke seem to end up in a zero-sum, eternal battle with Radtke: they paint, he covers it; they take to the gray as if it were a fresh canvas, he returns, etcetera, ad nauseam. The result, as can be seen by anyone with two eyes, is a huge quilt of spray paint and primer that covers the city. But what about the more “ordinary” citizens who are equally frustrated by Radtke but don’t feel the need to go out in the middle of the night to stencil their thoughts on one of his fresh stretches of gray? In this second installment, ANTIGRAVITY attempts to understand more fully whether Radtke is a martyr or a criminal, as we speak with the Vieux Carre Commission, one local business owner and a New Orleans police officer, while also exploring allegations of violent acts by the Gray Ghost.
For years, the Vieux Carre Commission has tangled with Radtke. As a historical district, there are strict rules on what colors can be used to paint properties and what methods can be used to alter buildings’ facades in the Vieux Carre. Radtke has claimed that he worked out a deal with the Vieux Carre Commission; however, this is not the case, according to Larry P. Hesdorffer, the Director of the Vieux Carre Commission. Hesdorffer says that Radtke appeared before the Commission to discuss Operation Clean Sweep and his anti-graffiti work. Hesdorffer recalls that the Commission was not discouraging to or put off by Radtke. In fact, the Commission requested that Radtke apply for the same permits that all contractors working in the historic Vieux Carre district must. In particular, Hesdorffer reports that the Commission expressed a wish for property owners to be notified before their property was painted. In a December 2004 meeting, the Commission discussed Radtke’s request and decided that no agreement would be made until applications were submitted to and accepted by the staff of the Vieux Carre Commission. To date, no application from Radtke have been received by the Commission. Hesdorffer also says that he has heard complaints from French Quarter property owners in distress over what to do after Radtke ghosted their property. According to Hesdorffer, the Commission’s original problem with graffiti only becomes bigger once a second coat of paint is added.
Greg Rackham, owner of Bottom of the Barrel, an antiques store on Lower Decatur, claims that he first encountered Radtke painting his signature gray tag on Rackham’s property around the summer of ‘06. At that time, the building was covered in graffiti, as Rackham had just begun his business and hadn’t had time to paint over it. Rackham explained to Radtke that while he did not support graffiti, he did not see the difference between painting graffiti and painting gray blocks. After ceasing his ghosting, Radtke instead solicited Rackham to purchase a product he sells, a film that prevents graffiti from holding onto surfaces. Rackham explained that he was just beginning his business and couldn’t afford it, as in his opinion it was quite expensive, and Radtke left. Rackham asserts that the Lower Decatur Merchants’ Association has frequent discussions regarding Radtke’s company, which produces and sells the anti-graffiti film. Some support its use, others don’t; but, according to Rackham, Radtke wants to make purchase of this film mandatory. Rackham states that Radtke returned to his store a few months later, after he’d legally taken care of all the original graffiti on his building. Again, Rackham again asked Radtke to stop his painting. When he did not cease, Rackham told him to stop. “(Radtke) went off in a huge rage,” Rackham says, and upon raising his paintbrush in a threatening way and throwing the paintbrush angrily on the ground, Radtke left. He returned yet again a few months later, though, and painted over Rackham’s property once more. This time, Rackham immediately called the police. He does not know what happened immediately after that. However, Radtke returned the next day with a news crew. Rackham says that the news reporter asked him if he supported graffiti and crime, as Radtke claimed. Rackham states that he explained to the reporter that Radtke owned a company that sells a film that prevents graffiti and that was why he was painting over his building. Rackham reports that this interview was filmed by the news team but never aired. Since then, Radtke hasn’t been seen near Rackham’s building, though he still paints over other historic buildings in the area. The organization of Operation Clean Sweep has non-profit status—does Radtke risk violating the regulations surrounding that status by attempting to sell a product?
Rackam’s account of Radtke’s violent reaction is not the only one like it. Stories abound of Radtke’s alleged bullying and assault. These reports, from a broad cross-section of community members, often include Radtke pulling a gun on them. One story in particular, which has spread quickly by word-of-mouth and through internet sites such as MySpace, LiveJournal and Section 8, tells of a street artist who goes by the name of EAMO. According to EAMO, he approached a member of Radtke’s Operation Clean Sweep team after he saw the member painting over his friend’s tag. As EAMO asked the team member to stop, he claims he was hit, without warning, by Radtke, who was wielding a paint can. EAMO has several pictures, which he asserts he took immediately after the attack, that show a gash and blood covering one side of his head and shoulders and paint covering the other. EAMO reports that he immediately went to a friend after the alleged assault, who corroborates his story and who also describes EAMO’s injuries as extensive.
Whether or not Radtke was arrested is unknown to us. Of course, a large part of the mystery surrounding Radtke is by his design and manipulation of the media. Every major news outlet in New Orleans, as well as the City Council, seem to share an apathetic and passive attitude towards Radtke, perhaps because his actions, on the surface, seem to be for the greater good. After considering the damage done to the artistic psyche of the city, the assault on free speech (just ask James Johnson, who saw his campaign ads for State Representative buffed), and the direct assaults on some of the more eccentric citizens of this city, Radtke seems to fall squarely into the criminal element he pretends to fight against. Considered in several ways, Radtke is a vigilante and a vandal and is doing New Orleans no favors, as he creates more conflict and eyesores than there would ever be if all the graffiti, concert fliers, cabinet ads, and lost pet posters were allowed to proliferate freely. It’s no wonder that one N.O.P.D. office had this to say about Radtke: “The next time that I ever catch him doing it (painting public or private property without permission), I fully intend on issuing him a summons for criminal damage at the very least.”
