Made in Brooklyn provides a belated critique of the Maker Movement: from its origins in the nineteenth century to its impact on labor and its entanglement in the neoliberal economic model of the tech industry. This critique is rooted in a case study of one neighborhood in Brooklyn, where artists occupy former factory buildings as makers. Although the Maker Movement promises to revitalize the city and its dying industrial infrastructure by remaking these areas as centers of small-scale production, it often falls short of its utopian ideals. Through her analysis of the Maker Movement, the author addresses broader questions around the nature of artistic work after the internet, as well as what the term ‘hipster' means in the context of youth culture, gentrification, labor, and the influence of the internet. Part history, part ethnography, this book is an attempt to provide a unified analysis of how the tech industry has infiltrated artistic practice and urban space.
Wasielewski writes insightfully and scathingly on artsy entrepreneurship’s unintended impacts in cities. She brings a breadth of academic, journalistic, and ethnographic sources into conversation. That said, “Made in Brooklyn” could be more transparently self-aware; Wasielewski herself was an art history graduate student in Brooklyn when she conducted ethnographic research, but she doesn’t reflect much on how her positionality shapes her connections and information.
This book is a rant. Eloquently written, backed by plentiful bibliography and sprinkled with a bit of Debord, but still a rant. I expected it to be a blend of journalism and academic research, but could not find any actual etnography or a single line about authors methodology. She does bring up couple of provocative points and needed critcism, but as someone already noted here, reading a preface might do, as the following chapters are often repetetive. The journalistic part though is well written and engaging. My biggest problem with Wasilewski's book is that while she defines the hipster and maker meticulously, with the obligatory ironic remarks about their looks, she does not bother to define its mythical counterpart, the artist. So you can only read betwen the lines they are the ones with true creative spirit and bold stances. She only dedicates a couple of lines to the problematics of capitalization of art before the arrival of web entreprenurs.
So if you are after some in-depth, nonbiased view about the role of artists, makers and entrepreneurs in gentrification, keep looking. Made in Brooklyn is more of a caustic piece about darned hipsters and their artisanal mayos.