David Byrne | Comment is free | theguardian.com: Venice is now a case study in the complete transformation of a city (there's public transportation, but no cars). Is it a living city? Is it a fossil? The mayor of Venice recently wrote a letter to the New York Review of Books, arguing that his city is, indeed, a place to live, not simply a theme park for tourists (he would like very much if the big cruise ships steered clear). I guess it's a living place if you count tourism as an industry, which I suppose it is. New York has its share of tourists, too. I wave to the doubledecker buses from my bike, but the passengers never wave back. Why? Am I not an attraction?
4 comments:
This is a fascinating analysis of NYC's cultural identity and its past and hypothetical future development. The idea that the wealthy are locking themselves up in their fancy penthouses and driving out the new, talented and poorer crowds flocking to NYC is pretty depressing, but arguably true. One of the comments on the article talks about the shift away from smaller, under-funded community arts organizations to bigger, established institutions which cater only to the wealthy and educated crowd. This is a result of the cultural change brought on by wealth discrepancies in NYC.
I agree that the wealth discrepancy in New York City is prominent, but not necessarily that it is driving out the city's creative talent. Yes, there is definitely a rise in the desire for big, grand, commercialized productions and events which cater to the wealthy. There is a sector of people who want to move into fancy penthouses and gentrify neighborhoods. However, on the other side of all that, I believe that creativity in the city is thriving. Without even having to search I can think of at least a handful of new, exciting, and very creative projects going on in the city. Younger people want to move there. Many of them want to transform the art and performance scene. While this particular author may feel they are being driven out, I do not feel that is the case for the entire group of people being spoken about here.
I agree with Kassondra here. While many young people are not living in Manhattan due to high costs, they are still finding ways to bring exciting new art to the city. In NYC, I find art when I turn every corner. Because the city is full of such vibrant, beautiful art, many wealthy people are attracted to the city lifestyle. While wealthy people may be the ones who are living in Manhattan, younger, much less wealthy people are living in Astoria, Brooklyn, etc. and commute to the city every day to practice their art. Also, in many cases, the rich people living in the city are usually the ones likely to be funding, or at the very least attending, the art. I do not think it is necessarily important where the young artists are living. I think NYC has always and will always be a playground for innovation and art, and if the rich people are not driving the artists out now, I don't think they ever will.
While I agree with those who have previously commented on this article that there is still tons of art in New York City, and that there are places for young artists to go, I think that the author is not incorrect in his analysis. He is looking at the big-picture of the whole city. He also comes to the conversation with a knowledge of the city and how it has changed since he moved there in the 70s. Those of us commenting on this article are too young to bring that knowledge to the table. I have not spent much time in New York, but even in the short time I have spent there, I can see where this author is coming from. It's great that the wealthy are (at least) contributing to the well-being of the public space in the city, but where is their contribution to the cultural life of the city? Do they want to live in and contribute to a city that supports creative thinkers and artists? (They should!) As someone who lives in Las Vegas, a city that is very focused on the corporate entertainment industry, I understand the frustration that can come from feeling like a city is focused on one thing, and not on being various and thriving in many areas. The author's description of New York's constant focus on the financial world brings this to mind. It would take a lot of work and change for the ideal New York that he describes at the end of the article to come to fruition, but at the same time, I don't think it's impossible.
Post a Comment