Die, Yuppy Scum or Hurrah, Urban Pioneers?

1. Community-oriented workshops which add use value but not exchange value to the neighbourhood, and try to get everyone involved.

2. Commercially-oriented activities like freelance web design and slick gallery art, which tend to be done in isolation, for money, and to break down the old community values and put rents up.

I must say I've never gone to pottery classes, community theatre initiatives and the like. I tend to prefer slick commercial art (what else is pop music?), but I can see how it might corrode a community. In fact, that's often its whole point (Junior is listening to Eminem upstairs so he doesn't have to participate in the stifling, tight-knit community downstairs: his family).

We could say that whatever class or race an artist comes from, his work makes him a member of 'the intelligensia' in the Marxist sense, that is, a free-floating social atom able to align itself with any class it chooses, but belonging to none. That's why I restricted myself to community art, because it's non-commercial art created by rooted neighbourhoods collectively, allowing them to define and enrich themselves. Even your novelist, Dave, is ultimately working (we assume) for personal gain.

Meanwhile the people moving in to his area are downwardly-mobile white kids from the suburbs, living the urban dream. They're much more community-oriented than he is, but it's a different kind of community: loft parties and veggy cafes and ironic retro furniture stores.

In the early '90s, during the recession, it was possible to get a five- year lease for 1500 square feet of workspace in the area we now call London's Trendy Shoreditch for about £70/week. Often less, if you were prepared to go to the outer reaches of Hackney or Tower Hamlets. Artists and all sorts of young 'creatives' slowly, gradually moved into the area (not many shops served it until about 1995). But these were people who used local skills and employed local traders for their art and architecture projects, paying fairly or organising bartering systems to compensate each other. For example, a furniture designer would use a local workshop for production of very modern pieces, and maybe throw in a sofa as part of the settlement of bills.

Soon enough, the area was being written up and photographed in the media, first in style and art magazines whose glossy surfaces are belied by people actually employed there being insecure freelancers or staffers on small salaries. Their artist friends were waking up an area that had lain dormant since postwar times, and some of the artists and designers were getting famous. A couple of savvy developers knew the drill of gentrification and began raising rents, or where the artists had long leases, raising the service charges to outrageous levels for what was essentially replacing a broken lightbulb once every few months. With their gains, they bought buildings and refurbished them for that old chestnut, loft living, just as the City and tech industries began to get lucrative again. They opened trendy bars on the ground floor.

The artists found themselves and many of the local traders they'd worked so hard to include in their projects squeezed out when it came time to renegotiate leases, or found their landlords gearing up to sell to residential property developers. Their live/work spaces, borne out of necessity, had allowed the developers to justify their applications to change the zoning on the properties they were buying. This was unwitting. A lucky few were making enough money to buy buildings and did so, while the occasional developer decided it was worthwhile to allow the household name artists to stay on (good for business) and even sponsored street parties like The Fete Worse Than Death, to keep in the good books of one community while appealing to those who don't really care about such things - having cake, eating it too.

Young bourgeois bohemians moved in (aided by their parents), as did the City boys and girls with their fat bonuses. They went to different bars and had different priorities. They didn't mix and clamoured for things like Proper Supermarkets and little boutiques, not to mention Trendy Furniture. People who found Eames chairs and Belfast sinks in skips were being mimicked by rich kids who bought same from SCP and pricey interior design places. Overheads rose for everyone.

Now that everyone knows that artists' spaces = 'improving' neighbourhood, it's impossible to stay ahead of even the thickest factory owner with 'space' to let. I place the blame for the ruination of areas like this squarely on the people who actually determine the price of housing and work space, whether Thatcherbaby council-house owner-occupiers selling up to move to Wimpey homes in Basildon, or developers looking to make a fortune. Artists and craftspeople making 'pop' work add value to an area, but they're not the ones collecting the cash each month.

But I heard a funny story yesterday. Tracey Emin is buying up - outright - properties in Spitalfields as fast as she can, beating the developers at auction to do so. I don't yet know what she's going to do with the houses, but I bet you won't see her renting them to any Guys With Ties. I can see her setting fair rents and letting them to people who need reasonable, central housing and work space, because under all that monomania she's actually quite sound. Expect reports of scene altruism shortly in the type of publications that would welcome such things.

Not bad, and all she had to do was sell a few samplerfied bedspreads.

Do artists need central work / living space?

The really discgusting thing Suzy mentions is the hiking of service charges to force long-term tenants out of cheap rents. That is really scummy.

The rest, though, seems like a standard, mildly ironic tale of the ebb and flow of city life. It's certainly nowhere near as problematic as (for example) people living in small towns in Cornwall being forced out of their traditional communities because the holiday home market has priced all the accommodation out of their reach.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do that (necessarily), I'm just saying it's the same supply-and-demand mechanism as the price of accommodation and there must be a certain amount of live by the sword / die by the sword, no?

The state of the art market is probably another conversation, and one I'd love to have because I think many people here, especially Suzy, know a whole lot more about it than I do.

I just wanted to isolate that and point out the inherent elitism and snobbishness that makes the question null and void. Who says they are enhancing the community less? Who says that artists enhanced the community more? Certainly not the "poor people" who formerly inhabited the neighborhood and got pushed out by whiny art students.

I find it interesting that if the pushy pioneers are art students, Momus is on their side (can't have uncreative poor culture, now can we?), but if they are the bourgeoise he is against it. Isn't it the exact same thing?

Like I said above, the people who moved into Shoreditch initially had a real sense of community going which the more 'local' people were part of, socially and in terms of being employed in their skilled trades (lots of printers, wood shops, metalworks etc) by the people who were incomers. Who were not (as Ally suggests) 'whiny art students'. Sure, they were looking for bargains in housing but in many cases moved into unheated, unplumbed, please-condemn-me spaces and braved a cold winter or two before their studios began to take shape.

Whiny art students wait for an area to be trendy before cajoling their parents into buying them an apartment there, and don't generally become practicing artists (when a type of little rich girl does this, I call it 'studying for an Mrs. degree'). They're just stupid bandwagon chasers who stop with the art shit the minute any component of a conventional lifestyle (marriage/responsible job) enters their lives.

A lot of cities (exceptions: NYC and London) are stunningly cosmopolitan and artists manage not to fall foul of developers' plans; the rents are cheap and people can live in places with some reliance on long-term security in accomodation.

I work in hotel real estate, all I deal with are rich people and they're all exceedingly nice.

I was going to respond to these points, but on reflection they look better just hanging here. Personally, I like to picture them replacing the slogans on a Diego Rivera mural.

I still have yet to see a reason why the original, pre-art school inhabitants of a neighborhood aren't being pitied for being pushed out by artists, btw.

I'm on the side of the artists because I am one, it's as simple as that. I happen to believe that we're living in the age of communication, not the age of accumulation. The rich and the poor are locked in a symbiotic game of dom/sub which is all very 19th century, and I think that game is over. As for the bourgeois, they have their rearguard, obsessed with table manners and tiny social differentiations, and they have their avant garde, experimenting with new lifestyles, new social forms, new colours and shapes and textures. And that's the artists.

But I would think that, wouldn't I? Now go ahead and tell us why it's major new hotel chains which embody all that's best in humanity.

Quite frankly, your attitude is and has always been disgustingly elitist and negative towards anyone who doesn't think that sitting about being a "clever" songwriter and arsing about in Japan is the best thing one could possibly do with one's time (cf. hotel comment - funny coming from someone so well known as a worldwide tourist, Momus). It's tiresome and impossible to debate with because the answer will always be the same in each debate. It all boils down to that which amuses and entertains you = good, that which doesn't = bad. Which is a pretty fair thing to say about almost anyone, but it's just so blatant much of the time that I wonder if you're even serious.

Can I just do a "for the record" in this discussion, btw? I have an extrodinary lack of money personally, come from a poor family, currently live in rent-controlled housing (otherwise I'd be living in your beloved artist neighborhood), and until the reality of complete lack of money set in, I was an artist. I just don't see the point in class segregating and mowing down the integrity of an entire group of people (or, in reverse, puffing up the integrity) just because of how much money they make or whether or not they choose to perform theatre or paint.

And for the record, I believe this is true in most areas. Again, working in luxury and hotel real estate, I've yet to meet a company head/partner who came from a wealthy background and didn't do hard fucking work to get to where they are.

Perhaps this is why my experience with the rich seems to be so different from Momus's. I can only imagine he's done a lot with old school rich, people who never had to work to get to where they are. Everyone I know worked their asses off and are now enjoying the spoils and still remember where they came from. More power to them.

You, of all people, accusing anything of being anachronistic is pretty funny, I must say.

I'm sure you're right, that the Bronx has already stolen Harlem's crown as a truly macho place for daring urban pioneers to settle these days. (And to me the word 'pioneer' is apt because pioneers have always displaced the indigenous population rather than started with a blank page.)

In fact, when it comes to habitat I've always stayed a few years behind the trends. I'm not macho enough to, as Suzy said, rehabilitate old hospital sinks found on skips or battle the obloquay of residents who consider me invading yuppy scum. I'm very much a second or third waver, I move into an area at about the same time as the extra virgin olive oil and sushi bars. I don't like struggle and conflict in my neighbourhood, that's what ILE is for!

As well what do artists do ? We cannot afford the rent in good neighborhoods so we colonize . The the second wave comes in and we are out on our ass.

Art collectors buy not to be seen as cool and kind (even though, as people, that might be the case), but because they think their purchase will sell on the secondary market when they get tired of looking at it or want to palm it off to buy more cheap work by younger artists on the up. The artist that sells to, say, C Saatchi for £8000 in 1998 gains no direct benefit when the work is resold at auction for much higher prices. It is seldom about the aesthetic value of the work, more its monetary worth.

Yeah, so your rich acquaintances work hard. Probably not as hard, though, as someone who spends a 12-hour day on a building site, who has no guarantees about the length of their job, works in shitty conditions for much of the time and is effectively done with their non-career 'round about 40 when their back gives out. I have quite a few neighbours who fit this classification, and the only thing keeping us neighbours is this magic little thing called RENT CONTROL. In the past, when these workers had better rights and representation because of these funny organisations called UNIONS, they didn't have to make way at the slightest rustle in the breeze for cheaper, scabbier labour who only served to increase the profit margins of people who were already quite loaded. Rich people used to feel responsible for the welfare of the people they employed, because to be otherwise would reflect badly on them. They built affordable housing for people and didn't toss them out of communities or neighbourhoods when their fucking stupid children wanted to live there. 40 per cent of all new housing purchases in London are done with family assistance, because our wages wouldn't otherwise cut it. That doesn't seem fair on anyone.

I don't much care for bourgeois Bohemians, it has to be said. They only appear on scenes after all of the really hard work is done and they're more interested in associations with artists, invitations to gallery openings and generally being Seen As Hip than actually giving anything back or doing anything REALLY creative. They might do a little hobby writing, some light interior decoration inspired by the last issue of Wallpaper* and they might buy reasonably stylish clothes, but it's all chattering-classes surface wank. Sure, they have the right to 'experiment with new lifestyles' but that's crap to those of us who have a LIFE. I have the sneaking suspicion that these people will hit the 'burbs once they've had their Caesar Salad Days in the city.

Nick is in a very lucky position as an artist: he makes enough money to sustain himself, which places him in the 10 per cent of creative people that actually can make this claim, or have others make it on his behalf. He had to work really hard to do this, and got a lucky break that enabled him to live well in several major world cities. How hard? Try 15 years worth of hard. And notice, the second he had some spending money and clout he set up a few record labels which allowed him to help others make work, and get it out there where people could buy it. He doesn't make dime one for doing it - that was never the point. I know he's easy to lampoon for his interest in aesthetics and the way he expresses this, but I find it entertaining and sincere.

Whoa, LONG POST. Off for my date with Eric Cartman nah!

Most art collectors view it as an important way to contriubte to the creation of culture. Nothing disgusts me more then viewing it as a commidity.

The artist that sells to, say, C Saatchi for £8000 in 1998 gains no direct benefit when the work is resold at auction for much higher prices. It is seldom about the aesthetic value of the work, more its monetary worth.

Auction prices are an upper crust anomoly. Most art is swapped or sold between artist and patron. Almost all patronsd are not The evil Mr Sacchi.

Yeah, so your rich acquaintances work hard. Probably not as hard, though, as someone who spends a 12-hour day on a building site, who has no guarantees about the length of their job, works in shitty conditions for much of the time and is effectively done with their non-career 'round about 40 when their back gives out.

Construction Jobs are not even the hardest . What about the Secertary who works 60 hours a week in a front end postion. Or the painter who kills himself on a day job so he can paint 5 or 6 hours a week. The whole lumpen proltriat is noble is cheap and not very accurate.

I have quite a few neighbours who fit this classification, and the only thing keeping us neighbours is this magic little thing called RENT CONTROL.

This makes sense. Low income housing for those who have low incomes is the only way to deal with this problem . In Edmonton we ahve subsidised housing for artists and low incomes. Works well but the waiting lists are too long.

In the past, when these workers had better rights and representation because of these funny organisations called UNIONS, they didn't have to make way at the slightest rustle in the breeze for cheaper, scabbier labour who only served to increase the profit margins of people who were already quite loaded.

I agree with this point but it seems to come out of Left Feild . Plus unions in the states have so much power they have become too corrupt. They seem to be top heavy and help the brass more then the tacks (ie AFL-CIO)

Rich people used to feel responsible for the welfare of the people they employed, because to be otherwise would reflect badly on them. They built affordable housing for people and didn't toss them out of communities or neighbourhoods when their fucking stupid children wanted to live there.

Where did this delusion come from. You do know about tennemnets dont you. The Employer has never cared.

I don't much care for bourgeois Bohemians, it has to be said. They only appear on scenes after all of the really hard work is done and they're more interested in associations with artists, invitations to gallery openings and generally being Seen As Hip than actually giving anything back or doing anything REALLY creative.

There is also a huge number of people who voulnteer, or go to gallries , or donate money to arts orgs. because they think it is valuable. Not everyone who follows the art scene desrves to be tarred with the same black brush.

They might do a little hobby writing, some light interior decoration inspired by the last issue of Wallpaper* and they might buy reasonably stylish clothes, but it's all chattering-classes surface wank.

Who are you to detrimine what writign is hobby writing. Weren't you the one bitching that vouge never fetaures you in their picture pages ? I smell a whiff of pot and kettle here ?

Nick is in a very lucky position as an artist: he makes enough money to sustain himself, which places him in the 10 per cent of creative people that actually can make this claim, or have others make it on his behalf.

That is because culture does not sell. People work hard in zine culture or at hall shows or at galleries in coffee bars or open stages. And still they do not make enough money. The biggest event in an artists life is to quit is day job. Just because Momus is savvy to push the right buttons does not mean others should be called tourists or the bourgoise. ( I mean that as a compliment BTW)

. How hard? Try 15 years worth of hard.

But he is in London. What if he came from Omaha ? If he worked 15 years to the bone in Debuque ?

. He doesn't make dime one for doing it -

I think momus makes alot of money. But money is not the point or is it ?

I know he's easy to lampoon for his interest in aesthetics and the way he expresses this, but I find it entertaining and sincere.

Momus is brillant and i love his work. He is a bit too Andy to be counted as sincere.

I am sorry i did call and response , there was alot there i wanted to respond to. As well i was a bit bitchy, I think it may be petty jelously of a very minor poet .

Oh, and Nick does make a decent living (he ain't loaded) but the record labels he curates don't generate any of that for him. Not what hippies would call a breadhead, and a little more sincere than you'd think :).

Forgive me ?

A few years ago I went to look at a flatshare and knew it was wrong for me when the girl showing me the place said, 'we're all professionals here.' I felt...criticised for working at home as a writer, even though very few people are able to do this and still make a living (I scrape by, but some bills take ages to settle). Clueless bint. Oh, so you get up every day to go to your secretarial job in the City? Wanna cookie?

No, that'd be "main character." There were some poor ones (who, of course, got rich by the end of the books) who were these unattractive demi-god figures, and there were some really awful rich people as villains. Also, if you have an ugly name, you're a bad guy. Except for Dagny Taggart, which is amazingly awful.

Surely you jest, mark s? The fucking thing looks (and feels) like one of those awful Stalinist "Socialist Realist" films from the same time period, only extolling sociopath Rand's fucked-up worldview instead of sociopath Stalin's fucked-up worldview.

I will give King Vidor credit for one thing -- casting Patricia Neal as the lead. If yer gonna direct a film with wooden characters and wooden dialogue, then Patricia Neal was yer actress of choice.

I like "ironically" = I LIKE IT. Who cares what KV thought (Actually I know what what he thought: he thought the same as me when he was making it... it's a hoot: AR hated it of course.)

Has anyone seen the Urban Pioneer Project? will someone please tell me what it actually is, what they're actually doing? it's got the whiff of something off about it.

Left-wing extremists have threatened to target tourists visiting Berlin next year in protest over the "gentrification" of the city.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8216798/Extremists-threaten-attacks-on-Berlin-tourists.html