Report: NYC Artists an Endangered Breed

It's sad that so many of the posters here will say, "So, what?" Art is one of the most important elements of this city. It makes the city vital. Move to Flatbush artists! You can afford it.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:35 AM

Maybe some artists can move to Flatbush, since it is so 'cheap' there. And aren't there other neighborhoods further into Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx that none of us monied, gentrified, snob-type peole have heard of that are inexpensive? The artists-can't-afford-to-live-here claim is limited to 'desirable' neighborhoods (downtown Manhattan, formerly Dumbo, now Gowanus). Artists are like money-snobs: they want to live in the cool neighborhoods too.

On another note, the advert for 'Shaker House' condos that appears on this site is truly post-modern: a shaker-inspire modern condo in Bed-Stuy. You can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:42 AM

theres plenty of cheap-rent boring outlying areas that could use an influx of creative energy

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:44 AM

Most of the Artists I have seen are rich. with a nice house in the hamptons and cool loft downtown. Get over it this has been happening for 30 years. Move, You do not have to make art here to make it here, Geez we do live in the 21 st century. Most of these young poor artists will quite making art anyway once they realize what a pain in the ass it is if you do not make it. And most of their art is not worth the crap it is made of.I know I speak from experience I have A MFA degree.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:46 AM

Have you seen the Shaker condos? They are beautiful. And why can't Shaker style influence design in Bed-Stuy? It's a point of departure. I'd love an explanation of how this is post-modern exactly. What definition are you using? I'm assuming you see irony here? If so, explain that 9:42.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:52 AM

The Shakers were one of the oldest and most successful religious communal sects in the United States and, with one minor exception, the only one composed of native-born Americans of varying ethnic and religious backgrounds. "Tis the gift to be simple," sings one of the Shakers' rhythmic songs. Simplicity, hard work, and the love of God formed the very core of the Shakers' existence. They were gentle, peace loving people who believed in racial and sexual equality.

Maybe this makes sense for Bed-Stuy as aesthetic and religious inspiration.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 9:58 AM

Relax, 9:52. It's post-modern in that it absurdly juxtaposes elements in unexpected ways. An 18th century religious aesthetic in a modern condo in the midst of a formerly decaying New York neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:01 AM

Actually, the Shakers originated in Manchester, England and then moved to New York. Ann Lee was born in Manchester and emigrated to Watervilet, New York

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:04 AM

I just don't get the "absurdity" of the juxtapositoning. The aesthetic is ultimately simple, just as the the apartments of the original dwellers were no doubt simple.

And all of this aside, the bathrooms are really really perfect. B'stoner, can you post those?

Did anyone go to the open house?

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:13 AM

I agree with 9:44 and 9:42. These artists could also do what my wife does as an artist. Work for a living.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:19 AM

Maybe the problem is the artists they interviewed - I mean if your an 'artist' between 62 and 97 YEARS old and all you are making is 30G's - the issue might be that you art is speaking to no one (i.e. you stink)

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:27 AM

I am annoyed that artists are given special consideration in discussions like this. What makes an artist any worthier of subsidized housing than a seamstress or teacher? As far as I'm concerned, New York will always be a center for the arts regardless of whether artists live here or not. We have the museums, the rich people willing to plunk down lot of money for art, and galleries. Artists don't need to live in pricey Manhattan neighborhoods to create art. In fact, the most dedicated artists I know eschew New York City and opt to live in gorgeous farmhouses in Sullivan and Columbia county where the views are gorgeous and the cost of living is cheap.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:29 AM

Wait this is about senior citizen artists? If almost half are living in rent regulated apartments and getting social security and maybe a pension, they are living okay for oldies.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:34 AM

"most of the artists I have seen are rich'.

you are a fucking idiot.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:34 AM

New York needs to be alive with actual artists--a creative class--what was that book about this topic? But I will concede that they don't have to live in pricey Manhattan.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:44 AM

10:29 is absolutely right. Artists deserve no special consideration. And if you don't like the rural vibe of Sullivan or Columbia counties that 10:29 suggested, there are plenty of DIRT CHEAP cities that have charming and vibrant downtowns or neighborhoods with active art communities. Try Troy (next to Albany), Syracuse, Rochester or Buffalo. If you have the Woody Allen disease of rather being dead than living anywhere else besides NYC, too bad.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:47 AM

If the artists make less than 30K, couldn't they live in the housing projects? (Instead of jacking up the rents right next to the housing projects?)

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:49 AM

I don't see this as a crisis. As many of the above posters have noted, there are plenty of affordable areas within the five boroughs, it's just that artists don't want to live in them (e.g. Far Rockaway, Woodhaven, Elmhurst, Castle Hill, etc.). I also agree that many of the successfull artists (think famous painters, jazz artists, actors, writers) can afford to live here because they create a product that is profitable. Other artists can simply visit to present their art (e.g. dance troupes, musicians, performance artists). It's not necessary to live in NYC in order to live a creative life. Call me crazy, but I just don't see Memphis or Scranton usurping NYC as the creative capital of the nation.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:53 AM

Louis Armstrong lived in Queens. Coltrane lived out on Long Island. Lots of artists live in Staten Island, Bronx, and other places. People will live wherever they need to if they want to produce art.

The thing that drives artists to want to live in NY is that there are venues for the art to be distributed, listened to, and viewed. If those are endangered, then we'll lose the artists. I would think that to keep the culture, we'd want to focus on that. How many good music venues are left in Manhattan? Even Brooklyn? How many galleries are there that don't cater to the Sothebies crowd? How many dance rehearsal spaces are left? Without those kinds of places, we can't keep the art. When that happens, the artists will move.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:59 AM

Art=Commodity

Seems we should give people who manufacture art a place to do it like any other manufacturing type business opperating in the city. Gentrification usually means loss of commercially zoned loft buildings. SOHO>DUMBO>WILLIAMSBURG>REDHOOK>SUNSET PARK>?
Protect Manufacturing Districts like Naval Yard and you will continue to support the arts.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 10:59 AM

At least the last five or six posts I've made have never shown up, but I'll give it one more shot....

I don't see why an artist can only be creative in an area that's EXPENSIVE. Nor do I see why affordable areas that are good enough for other people somehow aren't good enough for "artists". That's bullshit.

When I was a graduate student (in a HUMANITIES discipline, mind you), I spent many nights worrying about rent and bills, but no one made a big stink about my plight and I never expected them to. Instead, on one or two occasions I moved to cheaper areas and worked part time. That's life at at some point we all have to suck it up....even artists.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:19 AM

what is an artist anyway? not sure how we are defining that term in these repeated discussions...

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:23 AM

'there are plenty of affordable areas within the five boroughs, it's just that artists don't want to live in them"

Uh, I think the truth you are missing is that artists will move to those "undesirable" neighborhoods, make homes there, work to improve them, get pilloried as gentrifiers, then get priced out of them.

I look at my block in Williamsburg. It is diverse, close-knit and fun. We all lived here when the L train was full of empty seats and there was one bar. We got stop signs put in to slow down the traffic that was endangering local children. We got some trees planted and a community garden put in. Some of my block is "hipster," some is Dominican, some is Polish, some is Italian. Some is section 8 housing. We are all going to have to move soon.

So we will move to a new neighborhood and it will all begin again.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:23 AM

"Shaker Condos" is a hilarious oxymoron in any neighborhood. I hope they have separate entrances for men and women. :)

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:33 AM

Kind of like the Shakers all over again.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:33 AM

Ridgwood Queens/Glendale
Corona
Rockaway
Gravesend
Bensonhurst
Sheepshead Bay
Hollis
Jamaica
Bronx
New Utrecht
Staten Island

All interesting neighborhoods with something to offer and as affordable, if not more than places like Bushwick.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:33 AM

HEY 10:34, I am not a fucking idiot, I used to work in the art world for many years, I saw many many rich artists. So FUCK YOU.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:39 AM

11:23...

problem is...sure it will begin again.

but if this keeps up...it will begin again in savannah...or in austin or in portland.

there are fewer and fewer neighborhoods in nyc that have been untapped.

we need to find a way to make even the long ago gentrified neighborhoods welcome and affordable for artists.

it's a good thing for brooklyn and queens. we will see the influx of artists for many years to come.

i'm afraid those days are over for manhattan, however.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:41 AM

no, you REALLY are a effing idiot.

to say most of the artists you know are rich means you are one of two things:

1. too old to not know any young artists who are most certainly not rich

2. an idiot

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:43 AM

10:59 and Montrose Morris at 11:15 make wonderful points, among the best I've heard in the many discussions on this topic on this site. A vibrant, thriving arts scene depends most on centrally located, appealing spaces where the arts can be produced, exhibited, and experienced. Audiences (both local and tourist) will travel to those places. Those who are making the art can commute there--just like most of the rest of us commute to our jobs. And it's simply a fact of life that those who make less money generally have to commute farther/longer.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:51 AM

The creative brain drain is already underway. Oh well, our loss is Philly's gain, as well as everywhere else's.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 11:51 AM

"Uh, I think the truth you are missing is that artists will move to those "undesirable" neighborhoods, make homes there, work to improve them, get pilloried as gentrifiers, then get priced out of them."

What I don't see is how this has any special application to the case of artists. If a postal worker or a short order cook moves to one of these nabes, works to make it better, gets pilloried as a gentrifier, etc., won't prices go up then as well? If so, then should we be looking for special protections for them as well?

PS: I'm also finding that my posts aren't showing up. What's going on?

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 12:03 PM

Finding Shaker Condos oxymoronic is like finding "Modern" condos in Windsor Terrace oxymoronic. If by modern you mean modernism (an aesthetic stance moored in the horrors of WWI, the rejection of Victorian mores and aesthetics, pastiche, increasing women's liberation, jazz, African art etc.). I mean, what on earth does that have to do with Windsor Terrace!

Every aesthetic movement comes from something "real" and much Western ART is in some way inspired by religion or the rejection of it.

Think Shaker STYLE. It's not the same as the religion. Although it's rejection of ostentation makes this development "really new" as the modernists might say.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 12:06 PM

don't worry about philly. the murders (horrible!) will keep the southern trek in check.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 12:10 PM

11:41,

There are still plenty of neighborhoods in NYC that are affordable to artists. 11:33 listed some of them. They aren't close to the East Village or Williamsburg, but so what? If your goal is to stay in NYC, then the options are there.

I also think this might be a way of weeding out successful artists from those who can't make a go of it. Let's face it: many people can't earn a living off their art because their art is crappy.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 12:12 PM

NO ONE with half a brain is moving to Phildelphia. It is on a slide back to pre 2000 level crime and businesses are suffering tremendously. I am an huge Philly supporter, but the change in the city over the last two years has been drastic. I certainly would not invest money in a home in Philly right now, that's for sure.

The Gowanus is going to be a huge area for artists over the next 10 years. I hear about a lot going on in that neighborhood that seems quite positive and the key to all of this is that Gowanus has the buildings needed for artists to make their art.

Also, 11:51....most artists I know are VERY reluctant to leave the city. Any serious artists anyway.

To survive as a serious artist in this world, living in New York not only gives one a sense of inspiration for the arts that other areas in the u.s. do not provide, but just having New York as an address gives one a step through the door that a return address of topeka, kansas will never have.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 12:16 PM

"The creative brain drain is already underway. Oh well, our loss is Philly's gain, as well as everywhere else's."

Oh yeah, I forgot that only artists can be creative. Thanks for the reminder.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 12:25 PM

My understanding has always been that the artists would move into the less desirable neighborhoods, such as Park Slope in the 70's and 80s. The artists would pave the way for the next wave of people to gentrify the neighborhood to the point where the original artists were priced out. It happened in Dumbo and will happen in other neighborhoods.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 12:48 PM

My understanding is that people of limited means generally move into less expensive nabes, whether they're artists or not. They then pave the way for the next wave of people to gentrify the neighborhood and if prices go up, then they're priced out. Why is this surprising? Why would anyone think that this happens only to artists?

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 12:53 PM

"The Gowanus is going to be a huge area for artists over the next 10 years."

You mean the are that developers are salivating over to build more luxury condos? It's gonna get Dumbo-ed faster than Dumbo did.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 1:07 PM

"original artists were priced out"

If you own, you'll never be priced out.

Maybe ownership should become an objective for artists, too. There are FHA and similar loans to help those with low-income become owners. They could try that BEFORE the neighborhoods become too expensive to afford. But owning a property is not punk rock, right?

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 1:14 PM

RE: the need for exhibition space etc...

While probably a valid concern, I think the geriatric artists surveyed for this article should not have that concern, based on their age and income it seems fairly clear that no one is interested in their art anyway.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 1:14 PM

developers may be salivating, 1:14 but i absolutely do not agree that gowanus will turn into dumbo in 10 years. i think, if anything it will turn into something more like the pearl district in portland, oregon in which case...SIGN ME UP!

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 1:23 PM

artists make people want to move to an area b/c they make it cool.

teachers and postal workers dont do that.

you could have moved tons of teachers into soho and it wouldnt have done shit.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 1:38 PM

Hey 11:39...

No, you ARE an idiot to make it sound like the majority of artists are rich. The majority of artists don't make shit. The majority of artists hold down office jobs or service jobs. The majority of artists try their best to express themselves in the few feeble hours they can get in their studios. The majority of artists really do struggle. The majority of artists probably think you're an idiot.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 1:43 PM

The majority of artists also suck that is why they work in crummy jobs to try to make their art in their pathetic little studios and hang out at Gorilla Coffee all day looking at stupid blogs like this one, Get off your ass and do something worthwhile, Art is over. It is a plaything for the rich. I should Know I have a fuckin MFA. And if I was not in the fucking hospital right now recovering from a fucked up situation I would kick everyone of your sorry little artsy asses.
This is all true.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 1:59 PM

good point about teachers and soho. artists have edge. they make music and plastic art and rhyme words and color their hair in funny ways. and rich people want to be near that energy. no one want to live near a teacher unless the teacher is a professor who writes about art and postmodernism as a Shaker-BedStuy problematic.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 2:07 PM

If you want to support artists, buy art. Don't give them free housing. Let the market decide who should be able to make their living as an artist. The others should get another job and do their hobby on their own time like the rest of us. Calling yourself creative does not give you the right to free housing.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 2:10 PM

Project much? Who said a damn thing about 'free housing'?

Oh, wait. you did.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 2:31 PM

Shit, the bitter MFA person appears to have wifi in their hospital room. Anyhoo, best of luck to ya. Hope the doctors manage to find and extract whatever crawled up your ass and died.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 2:33 PM

Teachers are far more interesting than artists. They do an important job, have more interesting stories, and are more down-to-earth.

Artists, on the other hand, are immature, petulant, and have a grandiose sense of self-importance. Plus, they're always looking for a handout, either from family or the government. I'd rather have a teacher than an artist as my neighbor any day.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 2:45 PM

Most people in New York...3:19 sadly wish New York was more like Akron, Ohio than Paris.

Some really uncultured slobs with a lot of money in this city.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 3:29 PM

2:45, no one debates that teachers do an 'important' job. but I know lot of teachers who are petchulant, and i know alot of artists who are down to earch. So STFU with your generalizations and get back to your spreadsheets. Or diapaer your baby or whatever the hell it is you do that affords you such a grand view of society.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 3:34 PM

i too know a lot of artists with a lot of money. if you are truly talented, the money comes pretty quick.

so many commercial enterprises succeed only by finding people to create content. this is true from interior design to advertising to the music biz to theater. my own stepbrother was making a lot of money prior to even graduating college as a musical theater/opera singer. he got on broadway on his FIRST tryout. good is good people.

if you have no money, that's a pretty good indication that your art/talent is probably really bad.

i work with photographers and many can market themselves to galleries, magazines and ad agencies. the good ones make excellent money and the not good ones, very little.

writers can supplement income all sorts of ways too including selling their work to hollywood.

don't buy that we need to subsidize people who are perfectly capable of making a good living.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 3:44 PM

what about the artists that are just starting out, 3:44?

they all have money too?

could you be any more narrow minded...?

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 3:54 PM

If you can afford to redo your bathroom, you can fucking well afford to buy some art.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 4:40 PM

you used to annoy me a little bit montrose, but i'm a convert.

i enjoy reading your posts.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 4:44 PM

It would be refreshing to see some ideas about more affordable housing solutions in every neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 5:00 PM

We should keep a few artists around for entertainment, but the rest should be banished.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 5:39 PM

Boy...art is VERY controversial!

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 5:52 PM

Let's face facts. The only reason this story--and the others that deal with anything related to rent protection--is a featured post on Brownstoner today is cause it gets everybody all hot and bothered and in the mood to comment, thus driving up site visits and Brownstoner's ad revenue.

Posted by: guest at December 3, 2007 6:15 PM

Jimmy Legs said, " i'd love a federally-funded artists colony smack dab in the middle of the city, where artists can ply their trade unmolested by the forces of the ultra-rich"

Ummm, artists can't ply their trade unmolested by the forces of the ultra-rich. The ultra-rich are their patrons. Art is a luxury good, and the wealthier the city becomes, and the more of a tourist destination, the more money will be spent on art, and the more artists will find gainful employment plying their trade.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 11:20 AM

Let me tell you a little story about having "artists" as neighbors.

My husband and I used to live in a brownstone, on the 2nd floor. A couple of "artists" moved in above. He was a painter, she a violinist. Because they were so very creative and talented, they undertook a renovation of their apartment (a rental, mind you) that included ripping up layer after layer of flooring. They kept expecting to hit hardwood. Eventually they hit the subfloor, at which point they "ran out of money" (because they were artists dontcha know, making due on limited funds). We could hear everything they did. Every conversation, every sneeze, their sex. But the worst part? She practiced that violin 12 hours a day. It was the first thing we heard in the morning, the last thing we heard at night, and all we heard all day long on the weekends. Somehow, they could afford month-long vacations, a studio for him to paint in, and materials for the never-ending "renovation" (they totally fucked up a perfectly nice apartment and took complete advantage of our kindhearted, old fashioned Italian landlord). But they never had the money for rugs or to finish the floor. We finally moved after they had a square-dancing party on Thanksgiving. Yes. Square-dancing.

All in all, I'd rather live near teachers, social workers, cops, fireman, office workers ... anyone really. God save us from the artists.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 2:01 PM

They were lame so of course that means all artists are lame. yuuup.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 4:43 PM

Ah 4:43, had you lived there you'd be singing a different tune, I assure you. You should have met their friends and the many, many musicians who came by to rehearse. Lovely bunch of folks who came careening drunk up and down the stairs and "disposed" of their lit cigarettes by throwing them out the windows and onto our terrace. Truly, just the most wonderful bunch of creative souls.

Posted by: guest at December 4, 2007 6:11 PM

I hope NYC does not become like Paris. If it does, then the transit workers will go on strike forever.

Posted by: guest at December 5, 2007 2:34 PM