HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2013, 3:04 PM
Tuckerman Tuckerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 979
In the history of art many great artists have gone to the great art centers to be surrounded and influenced by other artists, but many great artists have gone into the provinces to escape those same influences. For those interested there was a fascinating book published recently entitled "Noplaceness: Art in a Post Urban Landscape" that takes up the whole issue of creativity in the hinterlands. The debate has no real answer - perhaps because creativity rests as much with or in the individual artist as it does in the place where they create art. Whether or not that creativity is recognized, however, may depend on external circumstances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2013, 3:57 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
Actually, while creative types are often on the vanguard of increasing wealth and concomitant economic effects (the plutocratization of New York is arguably a macro effect of the same trend of the artist-driven gentrification) urban plutocratization has led to artist migration to less-expensive cities. In the U.S. this has manifested as a movement of creative types from Frisco to Oakland, for example, or New York to Newark, NJ, and Philadelphia; a UK example is the growth of northern English cities'* artistic scenes as they are being pushed out of London proper.

Detroit really has also become an artistic magnet as well.
___________
*Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, York...
I will agree with this, when I went down to Philly, it felt like what NYC use to be like in the sense of creative type people. Though there are still plenty of struggling people in NYC and they are moving into neighborhoods that use to not be seen as creative....though I don't think the idea of "creative" is the same as it was 20 years or even 10 years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2013, 4:22 PM
austin242 austin242 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 591
Ps. Detroit is a hotbed for creativity. Techno was created there. There are lots of interesting things coming out of Detroit. Cities become expensive because of the creative types. In Austin we deal with this problem everyday. The funky weird cool town that we knew is dying. But more likely its just being overshadowed. Its not gone its just not the majority these days. Its actually quite sad. I miss Leslie and the and every other creative, out of the box, interesting, creative, innovative types. They are not all gone however. Well leslie is. R.I.P. They have just been sent further and further into a suppressed state due to money concerns and having less and less of an impact as they are drowned by the sea of new comers. Austins headed in the wrong direction if we can't help the type of people we want prosper. I mean its nice to have this new glitzy, high fashion, laid back, feel that we are getting. However I don't want to loose the people who keep us balanced and helped shape the laid back feel. KEEP AUSTIN LAID BACK. KEEP AUSTIN WEIRD. KEEP AUSTIN INNOVATIVE. Keep the Natives. Don't change what your city has going for it. New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, L.A. etc, Keep your photographers, musician, weirdos and writers etc and help them prosper. Keep what gives your city a soul. Try to make that soul never die.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2013, 4:28 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by austin242 View Post
Ps. Detroit is a hotbed for creativity. Techno was created there. There are lots of interesting things coming out of Detroit.
There are lots of interesting things coming out of all cities as big as Detroit, but Detroit is not commonly regarded as a creative hotbed, unless we're talking the automotive industry.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2013, 5:22 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamTheArtist View Post
I think it's a crude notion to think that only poor people are creative and more wealthy people are not

It's not that poverty begets creativity, but that financial freedom facilitates creative freedom. And having high housing costs is a major hindrance to that.

Now, places with higher costs of living usually also have higher wages and more people, and thus, potentially more clients with more money to spend on art; however, not all artists - especially those just starting out or lacking a large audience - have the access to those patrons.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 12:29 AM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,184
One shouldnt confuse a 'hotbed of creativity' for the place they sell that creativity. For example a creative talent will get his inspiration and 'training' in a cheap, cool part of town, but will sell his work in a high end gallery in an established, posh end of the city, or get hired by a multinational there to distribute his stuff, say maybe a decade after he started out. Likewise on a larger, global scale say an artist may create his work in the creative firmament of a Santiago clubbing district being colonised by students or an edgy Korean film group fresh off the streets, or a new South London sound going round the local dodgy clubs, with all the zeitgeist that that accords - but the scene will be long dead and gone by the time they are exhibiting (and actually making money) and getting shows in West London, Paris, Manhattan, the internet etc. So yes, the rich cities do draw the artists and creatives to make huge profits, but the scenes and talent actually originate and live their short lives out elsewhere.

By the time the Sensation exhibition was shown in NYC (and subsequently banned) the yBas( Young British Artists) were already a cliche back home and their East London hang-outs were already changing hands with the formulaic multinationals, with Berlin now taking the helm. By the time Charles Saatchi was exhibiting his new German Expressionists in his Saatchi Gallery in London Berlin was being sold out and the scene cleaned up and cleared out. - Look at Bejing's art scene in the 90s and noughties, once the most daring, subversive and shocking churned out by artists hiding out on the city outskirts. By the mid noughties they were the darling of the global art scene- by 2006 5 of the top 10 highest paid artists-at-auction were Beijingers - yet the scene was long gone, the gritty factories they worked in converted into a manicured, planned art district and the second biggest tourist attraction in the city, and one of the biggest in the world. Yet all the openness and edge had gone - to create your art there one had to take out a loan, as opposed to daubing it on the walls.


In short the cachet that artists bring is often the catch 22 death knell for the area - what once attracted them (cheap rents, anything goes culture) also kills it with time, especially if they have talent and become successful, drawing high rents and fashionability, and commercialisation. This is the same for rich cities/ districts and poor, both microcosm and macrocosm.

If you look at who's making the money on paper you come to the conclusion it's the big alpha cities/ districts. If you look in reality who's making the talent it's the opposite. Your city may be rich enough to draw, buy and sell the talent, but not 'poor' (read: cheap, relaxed, struggling) enough to create it.

Last edited by muppet; Dec 21, 2013 at 12:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 1:28 AM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
There are lots of interesting things coming out of all cities as big as Detroit, but Detroit is not commonly regarded as a creative hotbed, unless we're talking the automotive industry.
Detroit punches above its weight in regards to cultural notoriety. Besides SF and Philly, I can't think of any American city in the same population class that has such a visible creative culture. Granted, in Detroit it tilts more towards musicians/performers than artists. New Orleans, while being a smaller city than Detroit, also punches well above its weight class.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 2:27 AM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 13,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Detroit punches above its weight in regards to cultural notoriety. Besides SF and Philly, I can't think of any American city in the same population class that has such a visible creative culture. Granted, in Detroit it tilts more towards musicians/performers than artists. New Orleans, while being a smaller city than Detroit, also punches well above its weight class.
One of the things that made New York the lead for arts in the late 90s was due to not only an admixture of wealth and ambition, but also being at the right place and right time to have a school leading a change. New York School was spitting out a lot of influence and experimental ideas, especially in the 50s and 60s, but by the 00s it hasn't been as influential.

In terms of music, the professors drew upon European anguish of anthems and experiments in atonality and had them teach what would ultimately become pop musicians. John Cage, Le Monte Young, Laurie Spiegel, Morton Feldman were all very influential teachers and composers.

In terms of poetry, the professors drew upon surrealism and dadaism, to push forth new modes of poetry. This would also push many of the musicians to adopt a shift in their poetry to antagonise the older generations due to their strangeness.

In terms of art, the professors took it upon themselves to completely reject the painting of subjects, painting objects instead. Lots of influence exerted from that.

New York School doesn't have that influence anymore, now a much more insular place. Maybe it has been crowded out, or maybe it has stuck unto a regime of style that doesn't excite anymore. And thus, New York is changing with that, no longer seen as a place to get all experimental and be revolutionised. Maybe there is a growing seed of experimentation there, but it is likely not going to crop up right now what with a strong and established style standing.

As for Detroit (there is a reason why I quoted your post,) it is on the forefront of the roboticisation and expression of engineering and industrial might that brings with it terror for the older generations and excitement for the younger generations. That is why Detroit techno has been so popular. Does it mean that Detroit will create a new wave of music? Who knows. But the devastated core might be a blank canvas or a black hole and it might wither artistically just as it might provide another wave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 12:20 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,004
These days there is no more art anyway. Real art ended with the deaths of the likes of Jean Cocteau, Pablo Picasso, Shostakovich, or Hitchcock in the 1960s-1970s. Today we're in the post-modern era. There is no art anymore, there is only "design" (Apple, Audi, Louis Vuitton, Dior, etc). I think that's because our society doesn't allow for idleness and time to pause to admire anymore, but is purely oriented towards consumption and relentless productivity. Even Europe has been contaminated by that.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 2:49 PM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,978
I find it interesting how NYC is so expensive and rich (and it does have a large high income population). But the city still lags in every way when it comes to wealth. It has high rates of low income populations, below median family incomes compared to the rest of the metro area, etc.
It is an expensive place, yet many people are living there in very low wages.
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 3:27 PM
Tuckerman Tuckerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 979
My comments on art were mainly about the art of painting, drawing, and sculpture. Perhaps it is useful to clarify this in the comments. No doubt the world of music (from classical to rap) as an area of creativity is connected to the visual art world, but the centers of creativity may be not connected. For example, Atlanta has a pretty active visual arts community and is a major player in the SE USA, but in some musical areas it is a national leader with regard to creativity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 3:28 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post
As for Detroit (there is a reason why I quoted your post,) it is on the forefront of the roboticisation and expression of engineering and industrial might that brings with it terror for the older generations and excitement for the younger generations. That is why Detroit techno has been so popular. Does it mean that Detroit will create a new wave of music? Who knows. But the devastated core might be a blank canvas or a black hole and it might wither artistically just as it might provide another wave.
Detroit has been a culture source for a long time. It wasn't borne out of deindustrialization. It goes back to at least the jazz era.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 6:20 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
I find it interesting how NYC is so expensive and rich (and it does have a large high income population). But the city still lags in every way when it comes to wealth. It has high rates of low income populations, below median family incomes compared to the rest of the metro area, etc.
It is an expensive place, yet many people are living there in very low wages.
NYC (city proper) will probably always have lower median income than the metro area, and will probably always have significant % of lower income.

A huge proportion of housing in NYC is income-restricted. Therefore, by definition, only poor or moderate income people can live in this housing. These are not only housing projects (which house something like 10% of the city population) but also limited-equity coops (limited income ownership housing), Mitchell Lama housing (moderate income rental housing), and various other city programs.

Even in Manhattan, which probably has more wealthy than any other geography on earth, you still have a high proportion of poor. This is because Manhattan, with all its wealth, has a massive amount of permanently subsidized housing for the poor. You have more far more housing project units in Manhattan alone, than in any other U.S. city.

In contrast, the suburbs rarely have programs for income-restricted housing. So you may have fewer wealthy in some cases than in NYC, but you will also have few poor. Even a kind of dumpy suburb will have relatively few below the poverty line because the housing will be all market-rate, and mostly single family ownership, and market-rate single family ownership housing tends to be expensive in the NYC area.

Another factor is immigration. In contrast to many U.S. metros, immigration to the NYC area is still concentrated in the city proper. And NYC tends to get huge proportions of poor immigrants; a much higher proportion than in most parts of the U.S. The leading immigrant groups to NYC are as follows (only counting 75,000 or more immigrants)-

1. Dominican Republic
2. China
3. Mexico
4. Jamaica
5. Guyana
6. Ecuador
7. Haiti
8. Trinidad & Tobago
9. India
10. Russia
11. Bangladesh


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l?ref=nyregion

And some of these immigrants are particularly poor. NYC Mexicans, for example, are different than the Mexican populations you get in most parts of the country. Outside of a wealthy class of Mexican expats in Manhattan, NYC Mexicans tend to be Indios from Southern Mexico, and often don't speak Spanish. They are very heavily from Oaxaca, Chiapas, and extreme rural Puebla.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 6:29 PM
johnnypd johnnypd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 638
Artists have always gone where it is cheap, and always leave when rents rise.

King's Road in London's Kensington used to be edgy, cheap, alternative and creative back in the 60s & 70s- it is the area the Sex Pistols & Vivienne Westwood used to frequent, for example.

Now it is the most gentrified street in the nation and it is difficult to imagine how it must have been 40 years back. Not unusual to see what is happening in much of Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, and I'm sure at some point (hopefully soon ) we'll begin to feel the economic strife & social breakdown that comes with the decline of the Western nations, and areas in central London, Paris & NYC will be reclaimed by the people once again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 7:03 PM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 13,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Detroit has been a culture source for a long time. It wasn't borne out of deindustrialization. It goes back to at least the jazz era.
Oh I understand that. But the last offering of Detroit's offering of cultural movements is techno.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 7:15 PM
mSeattle's Avatar
mSeattle mSeattle is offline
Socialism 4 Extreme Rich?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,073
It could be what drives design/social improvements in the smaller towns and cities and makes them bigger.

It sounds like the discussion is about middle-class and upper-middle-class creativity, creativity where one can "make a living" (rent/lease, shop, vacation) primarily on the income of their creative craft. Is this an outdated idea? Very very few get to do this, and probably never did outside of some democratic socialist countries or during the Roosevelt work programs.

Last edited by mSeattle; Dec 21, 2013 at 7:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2013, 8:09 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
These days there is no more art anyway. Real art ended with the deaths of the likes of Jean Cocteau, Pablo Picasso, Shostakovich, or Hitchcock in the 1960s-1970s. Today we're in the post-modern era. There is no art anymore, there is only "design" (Apple, Audi, Louis Vuitton, Dior, etc). I think that's because our society doesn't allow for idleness and time to pause to admire anymore, but is purely oriented towards consumption and relentless productivity. Even Europe has been contaminated by that.
Agree 100 percent.

Perhaps its not that cities are becoming too expensive, its that culture and art produced by most of todays creative classes is not interesting or worthy enough to be paid suffiiciently. But professionals--Orchestral musicians, stage actors, etc seem well compensated.

The idea that the fount of culture is a bunch of hipsters camped out in Rent-esque squatter lofts is outdated...
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:34 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.