I picked up this book while browsing the shelves of the art and music library. I had recently come across e-flux journal through an online community, which – coupled with the aesthetic of the cover – caught my eye, and made me decide to give it a spin. The book itself is a collection of essays which investigate the role of artists in gentrification.
The first essay looks at the role of critical art. This brief history begins with the role of art in the public sphere during the development of the bourgeoisie society in Europe. This positions the artist in the strange position of critiquing capitalism while, essentially, being implicitly tied to it. But despite this there is an art culture – an art culture that is global, She suggests that all moves toward reform are worthwhile. The situation is more obscene and systemic. That said, for many, art is done on the market's terms. Success is judged not by the art, but the sale. This leads to a loss of experiment. As well as a stagnation.
This title looks at the use of artists, or the creative class, as a tool in the colonial gentrification of urban spaces. These sections draw heavily on the work of certain urban theorists such as Guy Debord and the Situationalists, Henri Lefebvre, and Sharon Zurkin as well as the political move in art presented by people like Duchamp (and Debord). A large part of these essays is placed in response to the work on the creative class by Richard Florida. It is suggested that Florida's creative class is an extension of neoliberal policy, and ultimately works against critique. There is a focus on the colonial and racist nature of gentrification, and the creative class are the initiators of this move. A notion that art has implicitly fallen into the clutches of capital, and that this is difficult to escape. Florida's theory promotes diversity through stagnation. Creative class encompasses both the poor artist, and the rich 'yuppie'. He is one who is happy to support the arts, so long as they are controlled by capital and easy to contain. Creatives have been taken hold of and brought into capital. But Florida's creative class gives no agency to the artists themselves. Artists, as actors, still have the ability to move in social progress, and this can be seen in the occupy movement. These movements look different than the past. They are more autonomous than marxist. There is, here, a notion of direct democracy – similar to that of Mouffe. The potential that those in the creative class can turn against the neoliberal movement of the cities which have taken their labour, and used them for neo-colonial purposes. From this, there is a rallying cry against gentrification, towards occupation (i.e. Occupy).
The main problem I had with the text was that, while its message was one I tended to agree with, there wasn't really a sense of an overarching ethos. The author drew from a good nubmer of sources from different disciplines in order to make their point, but at times it seems a little superfluous. While I found myself engaging in certain segments of the text, it was difficult to sometimes see how they connected to other areas. That said, in general, this is a really interesting read which examines the relationship between art and the political. This text presents more of a realist than a revolutionary understanding of art, but at the same time does not deny art's revolutionary potential.
Worth the read or purchase for those interested in the intersection of urban studies and art. Most of the book skews towards urban politics, with a specific look at the role of artists within those theories.