nedhepburn: Patti Smith was asked what advice she had for young people trying to make it in New York City. The long-time New Yorker’s take? Get out. “New York has closed itself off to the young and the struggling, she said. "New York City has been taken away from you."
Completely accurate article.
"This is the New York artist today: A literal servant to corporate elites, hired to impart "creativity" to children whose bank accounts outstrip their own."
davidlook: Accurate yes, but the article fails to touch upon another kind of artist, the artist with money — and lots of it. The artist who’s financed by parents who can afford their kids the ability to re-create for themselves the lifestyles of the historic figures they read about in art school. Ironic that the inspiration for many of the new New York artists is Patti Smith and other figures of the mid-to-late 20th century art scene. Like Patti, they came to live and work in New York with next to nothing because it was affordable, and everyone else was there on the cheap in places like SoHo where pieces like Andy Warhol’s Soup Cans — Dennis Hopper bought one for a 100 bucks — and Rauschenberg’s early Combines were mostly given away at little parties. It was all very grassroots until the machine of culture got a hold of it.
Today, the new New York artist lives in a loft much like their poorer predecessors. If they make art at all, it’s mostly terrible, but highly supported because it fuels the infrastructure that is the rest of the community that can afford to live there. Dinners out, parties, trips to all the right events in Miami, Berlin, L.A, time to read all the good books, talk the talk, smoke all day and Instagram the bejesus out of it. Go watch Gallery Girl, it’s probably the most accurate portrayal of the New York art scene in years.
Yes, there are exceptions, and no, it’s not just in NYC, but this is the New York artist of today, and it’s not doing the culture of the city any favours, but really, who can afford to make art anymore anyway?