Artists and Gentrification: The Problem or the Solution?

What is Gentrification

Since the 1960s, when the term gentrification was coined, there has been growing concern about the displacement of residents and businesses in favor of wealthier people and the businesses that cater to them. Artists are often viewed as the first wave of gentrification. They come in and move (sometimes illegally) into old industrial spaces and then the galleries come in to sell their work and then the wealthier people come in and price out the artists. In this way, artists are also a victim of gentrification, but in recent years, the blame has centered on artists as being the first colonists in a never-ending tide. In the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn, rents have increased 44 percent in 20 years and the first residents have been long priced out. These people are often part of multigenerational heritages in the neighborhood. They often own businesses in the neighborhood, many times living above their businesses, and when they get priced out, the resident and the business vanish at the same time. The artists come, inspired by the “authentic” neighborhood. Then galleries and museums follow and residents get priced out. Looking at SoHo in New York as an example, we see the city rezoning industrial areas, then thousands of artists coming in and occupying industrial space, then galleries and museums, then “the neighborhood began to shift toward the residential, and incoming inhabitants were more “artsy” than practicing; the original wave of artists was mostly priced out.¹” This change happened over decades, but in 2010, 45 percent of American cities survey respondents indicated that they would build or had built artist housing as a revitalizing tool for neighborhoods.²

There are arguments for and against artists coming to redlined, low-income, or depressed areas. We will investigate these in order to better understand the role that artists play in gentrification and how they can do better by their neighbors.

Artists as the First Wave of Colonists

“On the west side of Prospect Park in Brooklyn, the neighborhood has been predominantly West Indian, but it’s changing. Maybe four [or] five years ago, there was a RIP mural that has been there for as long as I can remember, 15 to 20 years, and it was of a young black man who had gotten shot by a cop. And overnight, literally, overnight, some artist—I would presume someone new to the community—created a mural over that piece that was of a white girl catching a butterfly. The community—as you might imagine—was outraged, like, ‘we didn’t ask for this.’

It was a really bold statement, and it was interpreted as ‘We’re here. We’re taking this place.’

All art is propaganda. It was a beautiful piece, and was executed really well, but was in such poor taste, and was a blatant disrespect to the community that folks—after graffiti-ing the shit out of it—painted over it. I think the painting over it could be interpreted as ‘No you don’t. You don’t get to do that. We may not be able to control [when] the rents go up, or who landlords are allowing into their building, but you can’t start to now, literally, change the face of public art in this community.’” —Patrick Dougher, Groundswell  ³

This story is about Brooklyn, but similar stories have been heard across the country for decades. Artists are often seen as insensitive tourists; drawn to the aesthetic of a more low-income neighborhood, they create art inspired by what they see and they take spaces previously held by residents. The galleries that come in cater to the new artists of the area. No one asks about art or artists that existed before in the neighborhood. In Roxbury, Boston, a much-beloved mural of Nelson Mandela was torn down and people were enraged to hear it was to create condos. The actual circumstances are more complicated than that; the building is going to be mixed-use, the company is Black-owned and they have pledged to hire a majority of employees of color, and they have promised to relocate the mural somewhere on the new property. But the sight of a beloved public art piece being torn down (without notice) in order for a new building to come in is very triggering for many residents. They have seen this before and they know it often means they will be priced out of the neighborhoods they’ve lived in for generations.

New galleries often present themselves as good for the community; a common perception is that they’re bringing culture to underserved communities for example. But, “many art spaces ultimately serve as investment projects and property value boosterism for landlords, developers, and realtors.⁶”  Being at war with neighborhood residents is not good for any neighborhood.

“Gentrification is the New Colonialism,” by Mi Casa No Es Su Casa

Artists as Agents of Good in Communities

There have been many studies over the years that show that artists do not necessarily have to be a negative, gentrifying impact on neighborhoods. There is a lot of evidence that artists often do work with existing artists and residents in the new neighborhood “to foster change without noticeably high levels of neighborhood turnover.⁷” There also seems to be a difference between fine arts and commercial arts in terms of gentrifying a neighborhood: “fine arts activities (e.g. visual and performing arts companies, fine art schools) are more likely associated with indicators of revitalization, commercial arts industries (e.g. film, music, and design-based industries) are strongly associated with gentrification.⁸” The distinction between revitalization and gentrification may seem a bit small, but the creators of an NEA study were looking at the likelihood of art to displace residents and they came to the conclusion that incoming fine art usually does not displace residents. This finding goes against the standard model of artists coming in, then galleries, then residents being pushed out. And examples like SoHo and Boyle Heights definitely show that galleries can be agents of gentrification. But those are the examples that make the news. The study showed that in most cases, fine artists are respectful of the space and they work with the community to make it better.

There is also a question of which comes first, the artists or the galleries. Again, in SoHo and Bushwick, the transformation was heavily documented and clearly artist then galleries. But, “researchers found that gentrified environments had led to higher arts growth. However, this larger presence did not support the conclusion that the arts had driven gentrification and displacement.⁹” Thinking about this, one might see how this works. Artists still flock to New York and San Francisco because there is a preexisting art heritage in those places. Artists, like anyone trying to break into a new career, want to be surrounded by peers that they can learn from and be inspired by. The NEA study shows that in most cases, artists came after the city has designated an area an art zone, and galleries have already come in. In other words, after the original residents have been displaced.

How Artists Can be Better

Even if artists are not the culprit they are often depicted as there is still some room for improvement. Whether they come before displacement or after it, there is a responsibility to the community to promote the culture that existed before displacement. If there are still original artists living in the neighborhood, new artists must work with them. They must talk to residents. Existing art must be protected. Artists Heather O’Brien, Christina Sanchez Juarez, and Betty Marin recommend that artists join existing housing activists to fight against rent hikes¹⁰. There is an inherent connection between art and social justice and it makes sense that artists would get involved in this struggle next to their neighbors. Many people seem to assume that there are neighborhoods in need of art and incoming artists are a saving grace; they definitely can be, but there is art everywhere. Incoming artists do not need to provide something entirely new; they need to help the artists already there to become visible.

Another solution is to open galleries that serve existing residents of a community. In Bed-Stuy, New York, there is a gallery called HOUSING, “whose goal is to de-gentrify the gallery space and foster support for local, long-standing businesses in the neighborhood. Since its inception, the plan has been to create an inclusive space, dedicated to the work of artists and creatives of color.¹¹” The gallery exhibits local artists who may have a difficult time showing elsewhere and it serves as a community hub as well; they have events like figure drawing classes and artists talks. There is another gallery in Bed-Stuy, Richard Beavers Gallery, that has a similar mission to HOUSING. It shows work by artists “whose work depicts urban life and the rich culture of New York’s longstanding neighborhoods while also addressing the numerous political and social issues present in these communities today.¹²” Art can transform a neighborhood and it can help the community discover and promote its identity, so the work of new artists in these communities must be in the service of the community.

Do you think artists help in gentrifying communities or do they make the situation even worse?

Tell us why below in comment section!

1. “The Art of Gentrification,” Dissent Magazine (blog), accessed March 29, 2021, https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-art-of-gentrification.
2. ibid
3. Keli A. Tianga, “Art in the Face of Gentrification,” Shelterforce (blog), July 21, 2017, https://shelterforce.org/2017/07/21/art-face-gentrification/.
6. Heather Kapplow, “An Artists’ Guide to Not Being Complicit with Gentrification,” Hyperallergic, June 19, 2017, https://hyperallergic.com/385176/an-artists-guide-to-not-being-complicit-with-gentrification/ ⁴” The neighborhood sometimes fights back. In Boyle Heights, Los Angeles, “each time those fighting to hold the galleries accountable for their impact on displacement and gentrification in their neighborhood stage a demonstration, the galleries have called the police, and have even accused the protesters of hate crimes.⁵ibid
7.  Carl Grodach, Nicole Foster, and James Murdoch, “Gentrification and the Artistic Dividend: The Role of the Arts in Neighborhood Change,” Journal of the American Planning Association 80, no. 1 (January 2, 2014): 21–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.928584.
8. ibid
9. “Do Arts Industries Lead to Gentrification?,” Chicago Policy Review (blog), January 22, 2019, https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2019/01/21/do-arts-industries-lead-to-gentrification/.
10. Kapplow, “An Artists’ Guide to Not Being Complicit with Gentrification.”
11.  “Art & Gentrification: What Is ‘Artwashing’ and What Are Galleries Doing to Resist It?,” Artspace, accessed March 29, 2021, http://www.artspace.com/magazine/art_101/art-gentrification-what-is-artwashing-and-what-are-galleries-doing-to-resist-it.
12. ibid