Some mixed feelings about Wynwood Walls

November 13th, 2010 | By | 14 Comments »

A mural painted for Wynwood Walls 2009

Last year, Wynwood Walls included artists like Futura and Os Gêmeos and was organized by Deitch Project and Goldman Properties. This year, Goldman Properties is expanding the event and changing it up a bit: Ryan McGinness will be putting up a mural in a new “art park,” Jonathan LeVine has curated a show including Judith Supine and Doze Green, Barry McGee and Clare Rojas will be screening some video art, Ron English has just completed a mural, DB Burkeman (who just put together that great sticker book) will be organizing a “sticker wall,” Jeff Soto and Invader will each make new murals, Shepard Fairey and other artists will be decorating Wynwood Kitchen & Bar and there will be a few other events as well.

While I’m looking forward to seeing a bunch of good art and new murals go up in Wynwood, the whole event gives me a bit of a funny feeling. I’m a Primary Flight fan, and it looks looks to me like somebody with more resources is trying to take their concept, expand it, make it more upscale and take take credit for revitalizing Wynwood through murals. The whole event just rubs me the wrong way.

That said, there are some talented artists involved in Wynwood Walls and I’m sure they are going to paint some cool things. After the invite-only opening parties are over, after the bloggers like me and the suits like my dad have left Miami, there will still be some nice new art up in Wynwood, and that’s what matters, not the reason that the art got there.

Which brings me to something else I’ve been thinking about a lot: the way that street art gentrifies areas. There are plenty of examples: Shoreditch, The Mission, Times Square (kind of), Williamsburg, Soho and now Wynwood. Maybe those are just coincides, but I think that having Goldman Properties behind Wynwood Walls is a sign that people are putting their money behind the idea that street art leads to gentrification. Goldman Properties describes itself as “Leaders in the restoration and transformation of declining historic districts into popular, thriving mixed-use destinations,” and they’re trying to transform Wynwood, so obviously they think that street art will help that process. And I’ll leave it to others to decide if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

Photo by l_a_i_a

No related posts.

Category: Random | Tags:
  • http://blog.vandalog.com RJ

    Also, Goldman Properties owns the wall at Bowery and Houston in NYC that Os G, Shepard and Barry McGee have all painted. That’s a pretty awesome wall IMO.

  • http://blog.vandalog.com RJ

    But keep in mind that what Primary Flight does is much more focused on walls for the community, which are painted in the same neighborhood of Wynwood Walls. So the local community does seem to like these murals, regardless of why they were put there.

  • http://blog.vandalog.com RJ

    For the 99% of the world that will view those murals, the superficial result is everything. For the people that pass by those walls every day, it’s not going to matter how the art got there so much as it’s going to matter that the art is there.

    But obviously I have concerns about the project when you look at it on a deeper level. That’s why I wrote this post.

  • http://blog.vandalog.com RJ

    Very good point. I think it’s clear that that’s what Goldman Properties is consciously and actively attempting to do (although obviously they aren’t going to phrase it quite that way), and it’s a big part of why I’m uncomfortable with the project.

  • http://blog.vandalog.com RJ

    I think Banksy tackled this point best in Wall and Piece. I don’t have the book in front of me, but here’s how I remember it:
    There’s a 2-page spread. 1 page has a summary of The Broken Windows theory as it applies to graffiti, which is something that a lot of public officials seem to believe. On the other page is an email that Banksy received from a local Hackney resident. The resident complains that Banksy needs to stop doing street art in his area because Banksy and his mates are making the rents unaffordable.

  • Stickboy

    I don’ think there’s anything wrong with communities or certain neighborhoods accepting street art into their culture if they enjoy it. The problem is, it seems that this is companies/commercial interest that are driving this, and not the residents. Just another example of the commercialization of street art.

  • 4444

    “there will still be some nice new art up in Wynwood, and that’s what matters, not the reason that the art got there.”

    Yeah, don’t worry about the motivation behind it. Just as long as it looks COOL and AWESOOOMMMEE dude!!!! Superficiality is everything.

  • 4444

    Maybe it will matter to them when they get priced out of the area due to social cleansing, so that all the yuppies can look at pretty murals instead and eat in OBEY themed restaurants. How civilised.

  • 4444

    Yeah, and if this type of art is being used to effectively sanitise whole areas/communities, then maybe it’s not as ‘subversive’ as some of it’s proponents/practitioners would like to think.

  • Ricky Spritzatura

    The comment has to be taken with a pinch of salt, it’s called irony!

    Can’t believe you suckers still fall for it!

    Unaffordable indeed! But the trick is still left in your head. “What if, really street art on the walls did gentrify the area?” Ha ha!

  • 4444

    Yes, although back then it was merely an unforeseen side effect. This present situation is more like wilful complicity.

  • Gaia

    sorry but street art does not cause gentrification.

    our cities across america are seeing widespread succession now that people have a renewed interest in urban living and liquidity was so free flowing two years ago. even though things have slowed down from a saturated housing market, this is obviously a trend that will continue for a while.

    while artists have been utilized as urban pioneers since the 70s with conversions of soho and manufacturing spaces, this notion is really an illusion. legislation and allocation of capital is what transforms neighborhoods into expensive real estate. Yes these artists are complicit but the art is a sign of the change and money to spend on culture otherwise seen as superfluous. it is in no way contributing to the real financial effects at stake.

    also none of this art is subversive. get over it. the artists sure have. maybe some work that actually contends with the shift in wynwood would be more pertinent.

  • http://blog.vandalog.com RJ

    Good point Gaia. “Cause” is probably too strong a word. After all, correlation does not imply causation. There’s certainly a correlation though, however unintentional. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the presence of street art and the arts community in general is one signifier of a community’s impending gentrification, which is I think is part of what you’ve written.

    You don’t think that an interest in street art and the art community in general has brought people to Williamsburg? It seems to me, from the limited time I’ve spent in Brooklyn, that the art community has been an essential component of changes happening in Williamsburg.

    And thanks for not claiming street art as subversive. The vast majority isn’t, and it seems that some artists don’t want to admit that. Does Shepard still claim to be subversive? I assume he must, otherwise it seems he would have to admit that he is essentially a skilled advertiser in many of his endeavors.

  • 4444

    “get over it. the artists sure have”

    I couldn’t care less about the artists. I’m more concerned about the low-income residents that get displaced when their area suddenly becomes ‘trendy’ as a result of artists placing street art there.

    Street art sanitises an area and makes it seem acceptable to the slightly bohemian middle classes, then the yuppies follow.