Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll say one thing, the NYC writers, actors, artists, and intellectuals of yesteryear couldn't hang out in a bar today just to talk because...the music is so loud that they wouldn't be able to hear themselves!
NYC writers, actors, artists, musicians, activists and intellectuals of yesteryear couldn't hang out in a bar today because... life in NYC is too damn expensive! Most of the artists I know (including moi) would have to choose between a drink and being able to afford art supplies or food for that matter!
Areas that artists (of all kinds) can afford gentrify quickly because their presence has made that area desirable. They then have to leave because they can longer afford the rent. Remember, SoHo lofts used to be where artists worked and lived before the trendy restaurants, boutiques and chain stores jumped on board, as well as the east village, parts of Brooklyn, the list goes on.
If part of what makes an area desirable to live in is the creative spirit that resides within the people of that place, what responsibility does the city (or wherever) have to keep parts of it affordable so that they do not lose the creative/intellectual life that contributed to its vitality? And what happens when the city loses that population? NYC has been home to some of the finest artists, intellectuals, poets etc that have graced history. NYC was a place where circles of pioneering spirits could meet, engage in discourse and spark new insight and creativity. As the cost of housing and living rises in NYC, the city pays with a loss of artistic vitality.
NYC writers, actors, artists, musicians, activists and intellectuals of yesteryear couldn't hang out in a bar today because... life in NYC is too damn expensive! Most of the artists I know (including moi) would have to choose between a drink and being able to afford art supplies or food for that matter!
Ever thought of getting a real job? Face the reality: your art is your hobby, nothing more. You'll have weekends. Days off. Vacations. Evenings.
Quote:
Areas that artists (of all kinds) can afford gentrify quickly because their presence has made that area desirable.. Remember, SoHo lofts used to be where artists worked and lived before the trendy restaurants, boutiques and chain stores jumped on board, as well as the east village, parts of Brooklyn, the list goes on.
Not really. Good housing stock and convenient transportation is what makes certain New York areas 'trendy'. Artists/gays/other gentrifiers merely make them safe enough for cubicle dwellers to move in. SoHo had excellent housing. The East Village didn't, and for that reason is not particularly popular among the well-off - you won't find many ibankers living there, despite the neighborhood's illustrious history. The wealthy in Brooklyn have been busily gentrifying artistically barren brownstone neighborhoods like Cobble Hill or Clinton Hill or whatnot. Good transportation to midtown Manhattan + good housing stock = always expensive. Artists do not enter this equation, although sometimes they get in the way.
Quote:
They then have to leave because they can longer afford the rent.
If you cannot afford $700 a month in Brooklyn (sharing a 2-bedroom with a roommate in a safe, middle-class part of the borough), you probably cannot afford living anywhere in the US. Seriously, get a job.
Quote:
If part of what makes an area desirable to live in is the creative spirit that resides within the people of that place, what responsibility does the city (or wherever) have to keep parts of it affordable so that they do not lose the creative/intellectual life that contributed to its vitality?
What makes New York City desirable to artists is the large number of wealthy patrons of the art. Who do you think shops at SoHo/Chelsea galleries? Hipsters and 'artists'?
The artists go where the market is. Not the other way around. As long as New York City has the highest concentration of wealth in the nation, it will have the nation's most vibrant arts scene.
Rockefellers and Morgans and other arts patrons made this city the arts capital of America, not the artists.
It's the de' Medici bankers of Florence and the Catholic church of Rome that generously financed Leonardo da Vinci and other Renaissance artists who are responsible for turning Florence and Rome into the art treasuries that they are today. Artists need patrons/clients. It's a very simple concept.
Quote:
And what happens when the city loses that population? NYC has been home to some of the finest artists, intellectuals, poets etc that have graced history. NYC was a place where circles of pioneering spirits could meet, engage in discourse and spark new insight and creativity. As the cost of housing and living rises in NYC, the city pays with a loss of artistic vitality.
Yes. Poor urban "intellectuals", all dedicated to socially re-engineering the hated society that does not worship them. Actually, cleansing them out of Manhattan is something that should be New York's policy. Not attracting them to the city that their brethren nearly destroyed in the 1950's-70's.
And today's fashionable writers actually prefer to live in expensive and gentrified neighborhoods. Jonathan Franzen lives apparently in a Manhattan high rise. Jonathan Safran Foer owns a Park Slope brownstone. Can't really get any more upper middle class than that.
Ever thought of getting a real job? Face the reality: your art is your hobby, nothing more. You'll have weekends. Days off. Vacations. Evenings.
Not really. Good housing stock and convenient transportation is what makes certain New York areas 'trendy'. Artists/gays/other gentrifiers merely make them safe enough for cubicle dwellers to move in. SoHo had excellent housing. The East Village didn't, and for that reason is not particularly popular among the well-off - you won't find many ibankers living there, despite the neighborhood's illustrious history. The wealthy in Brooklyn have been busily gentrifying artistically barren brownstone neighborhoods like Cobble Hill or Clinton Hill or whatnot. Good transportation to midtown Manhattan + good housing stock = always expensive. Artists do not enter this equation, although sometimes they get in the way.
If you cannot afford $700 a month in Brooklyn (sharing a 2-bedroom with a roommate in a safe, middle-class part of the borough), you probably cannot afford living anywhere in the US. Seriously, get a job.
What makes New York City desirable to artists is the large number of wealthy patrons of the art. Who do you think shops at SoHo/Chelsea galleries? Hipsters and 'artists'?
The artists go where the market is. Not the other way around. As long as New York City has the highest concentration of wealth in the nation, it will have the nation's most vibrant arts scene.
Rockefellers and Morgans and other arts patrons made this city the arts capital of America, not the artists.
It's the de' Medici bankers of Florence and the Catholic church of Rome that generously financed Leonardo da Vinci and other Renaissance artists who are responsible for turning Florence and Rome into the art treasuries that they are today. Artists need patrons/clients. It's a very simple concept.
Yes. Poor urban "intellectuals", all dedicated to socially re-engineering the hated society that does not worship them. Actually, cleansing them out of Manhattan is something that should be New York's policy. Not attracting them to the city that their brethren nearly destroyed in the 1950's-70's.
And today's fashionable writers actually prefer to live in expensive and gentrified neighborhoods. Jonathan Franzen lives apparently in a Manhattan high rise. Jonathan Safran Foer owns a Park Slope brownstone. Can't really get any more upper middle class than that.
Your lengthy manuscript against artists failed to point out that the reason so-called patrons of the arts patronize others is that they are sorely lacking in the creativity needed to produce fine works of art and must do so vicariously.
Every civilization perpetuates itself via a mixture of wealthy patrons, businesses, educational institutions. And yes, thriving societies become great ones via fabulous works of art on display in galleries, museums, symphonies, performing centers by those whose efforts balance out the needs for well-rounded human beings needing to satisfy all dimensions of the human spirit - not merely the crass pursuit of material possessions alone.
Hence, we must find a way to accommodate all elements of society.
Much of your post distresses me. It's like saying, "Jeez, Thailand isn't what it used to be. It was so much more fun when we could have sex with underage girls. Why are they cracking down on this? It just ain't the same anymore...what a shame."
And I'll never, ever, understand people who love graffiti. Only a tiny percentage of it has any artistic merit, and even artistic merit isn't an excuse for vandalism, which is what grafitti is. If someone hires a grafitti artist to paint something, well, then it's not grafitti.
Oh there's still plenty of graffitti. plenty. and please God I don't want the old NY with the dirt and the hookers and the crime. leave it. it's good this way.
The relay mail box (the dark green ones) in front of my building is covered in graffiti, and it's a real eyesore. I went to the Post Office to inquire about what could be done, and they just smiled and said they'd take care of it, but they never have. I'd paint it myself if I could get the right color paint, but it's some vintage army olive green that seems impossible to find. The P.O. may have the only stock.
Your lengthy manuscript against artists failed to point out that the reason so-called patrons of the arts patronize others is that they are sorely lacking in the creativity needed to produce fine works of art and must do so vicariously.
Every civilization perpetuates itself via a mixture of wealthy patrons, businesses, educational institutions. And yes, thriving societies become great ones via fabulous works of art on display in galleries, museums, symphonies, performing centers by those whose efforts balance out the needs for well-rounded human beings needing to satisfy all dimensions of the human spirit - not merely the crass pursuit of material possessions alone.
Hence, we must find a way to accommodate all elements of society.
Thank you Miles, for your civilized and thoughtful contribution.
NYC is home to world class museums, performing arts centers, theatre, the list goes on, because NYer's have valued the arts and their artists greatly. I'm not saying that artist have never created conflict in the expressions of their creativity, I think that is part of the value of art - to challenge the boundaries of common thought and free the mind so it can open to new possibilities. Artists of all kinds are a diverse and interesting group and deeply valuable to the flavor and history of NY. That is why is so important to continue to find ways to continue to attract artists to NYC.
Woozle, I am by no means an expert art historian however, that said, patronage of artists in the medieval and renaissance eras were motivated by piety, prestige as well as enjoyment of art. Churches, especially popes, as well as kings and yes, the Medici were main patrons. Becoming a patron increased one's standing in society as it indicated one's wealth and ability to contribute to the community at large. The relationship between artist and patron was symbiotic. When public museums became more the norm this system changed. In contemporary society, patronage is but one of many support systems for artists - grants, individuals, groups, non-profit organizations and artists themselves support the work of artists. And yes, NY benefited from the likes of the Rockefeller family - there would be a great hole indeed without the MOMA and for those living in Westchester County, the Neuberger Museum at SUNY Purchase. (Thank you Rockefellers!) Don't you think they were on to something by supporting the arts? One has only to google " artists can no longer afford NYC" to see the myriads of articles written about the plight of NYC artists.
But you know what? I'd love it if artists moved to more affordable states. Come to Virginia! It's beautiful and we'd love to have you!
I repeat..anyone that believes NYC now is somehow worse/not as "real" than it was in the 70s and 80s should move to detroit today..because thats pretty much what it was like.....large scale mass exodus, abandonment, high crime, and all the social dysfunction that goes with that. What exactly are all you peeps waiting for....your Utopia awaits. As for what happened to NYC..it got its act together, cleaned itself up, aspired to something better, and invested heavily in ALL 5 boroughs, and not just prime areas in Manhattan...and it continues to do so. Despite the recent downturn, the future is bright, don't be fooled by all the negative hype...it is just newspapers trying to create flashy headlines so you'll buy the paper.
The future is bright? Yes, if your definition of bright is a bunch of white hipsters and trustfund kids running all over your city while cultures that have thrived there for decades slowly fade. Some people did like they grittyness of New York. That being said most liked it because of the culture. SOHO, and The Village use to be cultural meccas for artist, gays, and many other types of people that didn't "fit it" with the social norms that infested America. It ment that you could be different, be around people like you, and be able to at least maintain some some sort of stability in terms of living. Don't even get me started of the DIY culture that was one of the bigges things that made New York New York. Instead of having an authentic Italian pizza shop they change it into a Olive Garden, instead of going to a family owned coffie shop or bookstore we have to go to Starbucks or Borders. Having that makes New York like everywhere else, what's the point of going to New York when all the shops and places to eat are just like here? Don't get me wrong i'm all for the crime rates going down but not at the cost of New York's culture. Also that being said why do Hipsters and Yuppies have to take over every part of the city. You have already tooken over just about all of lower manhattan why do you have to go into harlem, williamsburgh, and every other crust of the city? can we please keep some good parts of the city from being playgrounds for the rich so that normal people can have a little fun?
The future is bright? Yes, if your definition of bright is a bunch of white hipsters and trustfund kids running all over your city while cultures that have thrived there for decades slowly fade. Some people did like they grittyness of New York. That being said most liked it because of the culture. SOHO, and The Village use to be cultural meccas for artist, gays, and many other types of people that didn't "fit it" with the social norms that infested America. It ment that you could be different, be around people like you, and be able to at least maintain some some sort of stability in terms of living. Don't even get me started of the DIY culture that was one of the bigges things that made New York New York. Instead of having an authentic Italian pizza shop they change it into a Olive Garden, instead of going to a family owned coffie shop or bookstore we have to go to Starbucks or Borders. Having that makes New York like everywhere else, what's the point of going to New York when all the shops and places to eat are just like here? Don't get me wrong i'm all for the crime rates going down but not at the cost of New York's culture. Also that being said why do Hipsters and Yuppies have to take over every part of the city. You have already tooken over just about all of lower manhattan why do you have to go into harlem, williamsburgh, and every other crust of the city? can we please keep some good parts of the city from being playgrounds for the rich so that normal people can have a little fun?
Wow, you sumed up EXACTLY how I feel about the "New" New York. Great post.
And of course I'll get flack for this from posters who THINK they know me or my psyche, but I (in a way) didnt mind the grittiness of New York. Anywhere you would go out of town and they found out you were from New York, automatic salute and at attention lol. But seriously, I like it safer, just miss the old feeling and culture.
Allow me to give a transplant perspective! For u slick rick and those who agree with you. I grew up in south LA! We still have plenty of pimps, hookers, and crack heads so you know where to plan your next vacation! I expeienced the gang wars, riots and and the fires that went along with the riots, stabbings, mugging, shootings! All from the comfort of own neighborhood! Let me tell you there are victims from what u call grittyness, I have lost many people and I'm offended that you feel the way you do!I have many scars from the things i've seen! I can't believe that there are people like you want that to be what city life is like! Why were all those lives destroyed? So that you can impress some girl by bringing her to the big bad city and act like you belong! If it was so great why didn't you stay? I now live and love NY! I do understand your so call feeling of freedom I felt it and you can have it! The things you describe are not unique to NY! Maybe you guys should get out more! I came here to live my dreams and that makes me a real NYer!
I came here to live my dreams and that makes me a real NYer!
Indeed it does!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
