Sam’s comment on our modern art wrap-up got me thinking about the city. Patti Smith said young artists should seek other cities now because New York is not as accommodating as it once was:
Patti recalled coming to New York without money, when it was “down and out,” and you could get a cheap apartment and “build a whole community of transvestites,” artists or writers, or whatever.
Today, she said, “New York has closed itself off to the young and the struggling. But there are other cities. Detroit. Poughkeepsie… New York City has been taken away from you… So my advice is: Find a new city.”
Patti’s words picked up steam when the Huffington Post ran it, but the original source was a blog called “Jeremiah’s Vanishing New York“. In both places, the item stirred a number of reader comments:
This is true only if you consider downtown Manhattan to be the horizon line for “the city,” which would be unfortunate. #
To “build a whole community of transvestites or artists or writers” is to start the gentrification process. This can be accomplished in the South Bronx or other places in the “outer boroughs.” #
The need to be close to the art scene in New York to get noticed is negated by the internet. We’re talking actual freedom here, not just slightly cheaper rent. #
If you’re good and you have talent you can make it here, no problem. #
Between the Guliani [sic] effect (although crime stats were already down before his mayoralty), Sex and the City, and the real estate boom, the city has become extremely homogenized and lost most of its soul. The newbies brought too many cars with them, and think it’s weird to talk to strangers. #
As I was following the links last week, I became wrapped up in this blog Vanishing New York. Before I knew it, I’d spent most of the morning reading the archives. The writer focuses on what was just touched on in that last comment: gentrification and what he calls the “yunnie” phenomenon – Young Urban Narcissists. Think Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. Have you seen or read it again lately? Though it was set in the 80s, it doesn’t seem dated at all. You can see Bateman-style condos for sale all over the city.
Check out some more Vanishing New York, this is a great blog:
I think Patti Smith is wrong and I find that kind of “you should have been here back when…” thinking so tiresome. Perhaps its because I was in Prague in the late 90s when everyone was constantly saying that. Cities, and the scenes within them evolve. NY may have been better from some perspectives when it was a dangerous, seedy place in the 70s, but I’m not so sure. There is still so much great art created here; in my opinion this is the best music scene in the world. And yes, it does depend on whether she is talking solely about Manhattan, which would be silly considering what’s gone on in Brooklyn the last 10-15 years. And within that scene in Brooklyn it is evolving. Williamsburg is still a hotbed of music and culture even though the area is evolving, with luxury condos by the waterfront and tourists stopping by. Some artists are moving to Bushwick and other areas. That doesn’t mean a place is “dead” or “over”. I don’t see why we have to be so absolutist, nothing is static.
I agree, I think this city still has a ton to offer and experience. Being nostalgic for “the good old days” is a pretty regrettable way to look at things. Moments come and go, energies coalesce and disperse, there are always new scenes popping up and fading away, in Detroit, Poughkeepsie, and NYC.
[...] can be claimed. Isn’t Manhattan just turning into a playground for the wealthy? Or is Patti Smith [...]