Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism. Become a member today »

Joseph Gibbons robbing the Capital One bank in Manhattan’s Chinatown on December 31, 2014 (photo via NYPD)

It was intended as a provocative video performance. Late last year, Joseph Gibbons walked into banks in New York and Rhode Island and videotaped himself robbing them. Each time, he discreetly slipped a note to the terrified teller and walked away with bags of cash — he netted about $3,000 from the first heist and $1,000 from the second.

But, as one might hope would happen to any bank robber, Gibbons was caught in January. And on Monday, he pleaded guilty to third-degree burglary and sentenced to a year in prison, according to the New York Post.

That a white, former MIT professor and Guggenheim fellow got the same treatment as everyone else would suggest that the US judicial system isn’t as broken as it has often seemed of late. Yet some members of the art world were saddened by the sentencing.

Ahead of the verdict, 26 curators, artists, and professors from prestigious universities like Columbia, Pratt, MIT, and NYU had sent letters to the Manhattan Supreme Court asking for either a light sentence or no sentence at all. “I hope you cast your eye upon him favorably and not imprison him,” Berlin-based art professor Julia Scher wrote. “I am confident he meant only the best for his art, and felt he was acting in a solemn and worthwhile direction.” In her own letter, Queens Museum curator Larissa Harris pled for mercy, explaining that she plans to invite Gibbons to screen his work — including the robbery video — at her institution. “This would be an enormous honor for us,” she wrote.

Many are also donating to help Gibbons financially. Video artist Peggy Ahwesh spearheaded an Indiegogo campaign that has raised nearly $9,000 for his legal and health bills, along with “food-clothes-and-shelter” needs.

There’s no doubt that the avant-garde filmmaker is, as Tony Oursler described him in a statement, a “national treasure.” He was an early pioneer of Super 8 film, and his work has always pushed boundaries and delved into the nature of criminality and psychological chaos. One 1977 performance piece involved “liberating” a Richard Diebenkorn painting from the Oakland Museum in California, while a 2006 video called Confessions of a Sociopath found him shooting heroin, shoplifting, meeting with a parole officer, and going to a shrink.

Given his oeuvre, it would be surprising if Gibbons hadn’t considered prison a possible outcome of his latest project — in fact, a stint in jail seems very much a part of the performance. He clearly knew what he was doing, and what’s more, his motivation may have even transcended art: he told Post that he robbed the banks during a time when he had no money or place to say.

So why did art world figures push for a reduced sentence? Do they really believe artists should be treated differently from anyone else in a court of law? Whatever the answers, it seems their pleas may have actually had an effect. Though the prosecutor was pushing for a sentence of up to three years in prison, Justice Laura Ward gave Gibbons just a third of that. He will be formally sentenced July 13.

Support Hyperallergic

As arts communities around the world experience a time of challenge and change, accessible, independent reporting on these developments is more important than ever. 

Please consider supporting our journalism, and help keep our independent reporting free and accessible to all.

Become a Member

Laura C. Mallonee

Laura C. Mallonee is a Brooklyn-based writer. She holds an M.A. in Cultural Reporting and Criticism from NYU and a B.F.A. in painting from Missouri State University. She enjoys exploring new cities and...

4 replies on “Art World Rallies Around Bank-Robbing Filmmaker”

  1. One year for robbing two banks? And that is considered TOO MUCH? No, that is a light sentence.

    I don’t care if he calls it art, he still broke the law in a rather major way. He deserves at least the one year he was sentenced to.

    Where do we stop? If you can rob a bank in the name of art, how else can you victimize people in the name of art with the support of the art world? Would these asses have supported Valerie Solanas as long as she couched her attempted murder of Warhol as art?

  2. What makes the art world such an exciting train wreck is the self-embarrassing nonsense it offers the world everyday as terrific displays of it’s own amoral self-delusions.

    Just this week we had an “art critic” tear into a charity by J.Crew, that might generate millions of dollars for people in Nepal, for not having super original photography.

    Then, Anish Kapoor issues a self-aggrandizing statement wherein he postures his metal twat as morally and culturally sacred, an object that only backwater degenerates couldn’t appreciate. Even if this vandalism was politically or morally motivated, rather than kids having some fun, he can’t accept that his view of his work and might very well not represent the idealist march toward human progress others can’t comprehend. Take a number; no one likes their shit vandalized.

    Now we have the art world defending the theft of other people’s money. Don’t you understand, judicial system, that this is art?

    Really, those thought-to-be uneducated people who think the art world is run by a bunch of beyond-help elitist snobs, who hate the bourgeoisie middle-class, are often quite right.

  3. Has the Art World considered the feelings of the bank employees who were his “victims”? They were not willing participants in his performance. This article even states the note was given to the “terrified teller”. Most likely they would have assumed that their lives were in danger. Terrorizing human beings as an artistic statement is morally repugnant to this reader. What’s next? Attempted rape?

    1. Rape art is so last month. “This is not rape” was the recorded, performace-art subject of the mattress-carrying girl at Columbia. You’re supposed to question if she got raped.

Comments are closed.