Review paper
Rosalyn Deutsche and Cara Gendel Ryan makes a strong argument involving the struggles in the West Village and highlights a time when artist in the community were being used to serve the interests of real estate developers by driving communities of color and poor communities. The author portrays a period when there was acute political consciousness in the New York arts community. They represent the New York’s art business as having invaded the poorest neighborhoods in the city , which was packaged as in the process as a combination of “Poverty , punk rock , drugs , arson , Hell’s Angels , winos , prostitutes and dilapidated housing” (Deutsche and Cara, 93). This article derives its strengths from the representation of how New York art was enabling the process of gentrification and driving out the poor community from the poor neighborhoods like the West Village. The artistic representation served to portray the neighborhoods as a place for adventure for the artists, but this concealed a brutal reality, that of a strategic war of position wrought against a local population that is increasingly isolated and impoverished (Deutsche and Cara, 93). The writers present gentrification as being driven by real estate developers with big capital with an immediate goal of dislodging a working class that is largely redundant by taking away the neighborhood housing and property.
The other issue that the artistic representation helped was to encourage a full –scale development of the desired housing conditions so that to sustain the labor force of capitalism consisting of white working class who would serve the post-industrial society in America. The main aim of the gentrification of Lower East Side was to bring the working middle class, majorly white, closer to their working places but ignoring injustice meted on the people of color leaving poor neighborhoods. As such, the people with loads of money were playing with futures and lives of individuals with so little hope (Deutsche and Cara, 94). In addition, the authors present a unique argument on the need for artists to avoid aligning themselves with capitalist forces promoting the destruction by first understanding the entire gentrification process. An understanding of gentrification aligning with the destruction is that of Latin and Black American communities who view it as a way for the white population to reclaim inner cities by moving into their neighborhoods. A true definition of gentrification would require the setting aside the economic forces that were bringing about destroying cities, neighborhoods and even the traditional working classes. The expansion of capitalism was to blame for the increasing poverty among the working class since the introduction of new machines rendered many people jobless or their wages declined (Deutsche and Cara, 94). The higher increase in blue collar jobs than white collar jobs over the decades is an indication of the existing gap between the then generation and the previous one, who largely provided labor to industries. While jobs and wages declined over the period, profitability of private organizations increased which was a clear proof of true capitalism. Many people who found themselves unemployed were victims of their own inability to adapt, an incapacity that is attributed to division of labor (Deutsche and Cara, 96).
The authors depicts gentrification as a significant factor in the entire impoverishment strategy, where housing are created and hence, neighborhoods that can only be afforded by white-collar workers. The conditions necessary for survival of many poor people are destroyed in the process. Moreover, investment in new housing aimed at benefiting low-income people in big cities adds ups as a loss (Deutsche and Cara, 97). The investments that are most profitable are the ones that destroy the homes of poor families to create room for high-income families and businesses. A moral contention arises basically on the issue of who really owns the land in the Lower East Side, and the authors note that truly, it belongs to the poor who were struggling when other people did not want to live in such areas. A difference is also noted between the earlier European immigrants and today’s minorities. While the European immigrants were gradually assimilated, the minorities underwent attrition. The whites who moved from the affluent cities did so only because the landlords had deserted the dilapidated buildings and these who initially moved to the poor neighborhoods could be considered as the rejects of the affluent neighborhoods. They form new slums in the poor neighborhoods, but slums in Lower East Side are undergoing radical transformation as investments of millions is done by the affluent classes so that they can live there themselves(Deutsche and Cara, 99). The result is a displacement of people who have nowhere else to relocate a process called revitalization.
The authors see an issue with the failure of the art press to remark the gentrification process which occurs concurrently with unfolding of present art scene. The treatment of the issue of the interrelationship between the gentrification process and unfolding art scene happens in two ways including ignoring it altogether or being presented as a side issue that can easily be dispensed. Artists such as Richard and Moufarrege failed to call the problem by its true name , gentrification , even though Lower East Side plays an important role in promotion of their scene (Deutsche and Cara, 99) . Even various East Village art apologists like Walter Robinson and Carlo McCormick fail to pay sufficient attention to the issue only indicating how gentrification is influenced by their work but immediately reverting to business of lavishly illustrating the scene’s pleasures. The artist is seen to careless about the issue as long as their work is showing good art. The artists form an alliance with the real estate developers through their advertisement and validation of East Village scene products in the press coverage. Few others like Craig Owen attempted to draw attention to the role of East Village scene, social or economic, that previous commentators had suppressed and thus creating a way for true questioning of the impact of artists in gentrification process (Deutsche and Cara, 99).
The artists also exploit these poor neighborhoods through their sensationalist connotations that deflect the attention away from the ills affecting the society, including economic, political and social problems. Such an attitude is similar to the one that enable affluent residents in the city to continue being indifferent to the problem of the displacing the poor; poverty is assessed as a natural thing and gentrification is shown as inevitable and in some instances as being desirable (Deutsche and Cara, 101).The artists assumes they are exempted from social responsibility in their efforts to present their work , and approach this neighborhood with a possessive and dominating attitudes of trying to be part of its transformation to an imaginary site(Deutsche and Cara, 105). The authors question the easiness with which considerations for social issues affecting these neighborhoods are pushed aside.
However, I find the arguments by the authors to be having some limitations since they fail to consider the full work of artists and this seems to make their arguments increasingly complex. No doubt that artist should observe a great high level of responsibility so that they promote advancement of their society. However, I would strongly consider that artists should have the freedom to create scenes and images by having a right to independently expressing of personal views. The issue the authors should also have considered whether the New York artists in Lower East Side should conform to a given social norms so as to appease the public; or are they supposed to follow personal beliefs while creating their artworks which makes it possible for them to attain sense of satisfaction? Art is normally a personal creation and artists should be allowed the right to present their views without being judged by other people. In addition, the authors’ argument complicates the discussion because the personal interpretation of viewers differs greatly in the contemporary art. Eventually, some viewers may disregard the intention of the artists if their intent is to be judgmental and labeling of the artists as not being responsible. Furthermore, the presentation of the by the artist of the East Village transformation could also be viewed as a way of sending a message on the need to have decent housing for all citizens and not only when the rich class are interested. The artists can be allowed to develop a fascinating and wonderful representation of the benefits of a new transformation of poor neighborhoods.
References
Deutsche, Rosalyn, and Cara Gendel Ryan. "The fine art of gentrification." October 31 (1984): 91-105.
