On rare weekends between waves of projects and tests, I manage to escape the Northwestern campus and usually treat myself to a day in one of Chicago’s hip neighborhoods such as Wicker Park and Andersonville. However, this attitude and attraction of “hip” neighborhoods results in and perpetuates the toxic gentrification process that pushes low-income residents out of their homes when their neighborhood become too “edgy” for the ones who created it. Sherry Zhong wrote a critique recently for Third Coast Review discussing a recent book release that tackles the complex and sometimes devastating process of “the artists’ role in gentrification” (Zhong). The book Streetopia, Zhong says, “is a collection of works from 24 San Francisco artists and writers,” which is “not a book for a person unwilling to hear narratives with strident, patronizing undertones.” Particularly young artists tend to move into poorer neighborhoods with affordable housing because it’s hard to make a living. But as a side effect their creativity in the area gives it a “cool vibe that attracts consumers willing to pay for… the satisfaction of living somewhere urban, artsy and cool,” which eventually drives the price of living too high for the original residents. Though I don’t live in one of these gentrified Chicago neighborhoods (which follow the same model as gentrified neighborhoods everywhere), I too am guilty of contributing to the exploitation of urban environments.

After reading about this book, the theme of urban exploitation was still fresh in my mind when I stumbled across the favorable critique of an exhibition at the Gage Gallery. Mark Pohlad reviewed the art show “Not Forgotten: Chicago Street Memorials,” and though his critique lacked some specificity of the work, I gauged that the exhibition showcases street memorials through different lenses and media. Images depicting street art combine with “spoken-word soundtracks by survivors, city officials and activists” commemorating those who died on the streets, usually but not always from violent crimes, many of which go unsolved. Pohlad admits that “the glitzy address of Roosevelt University’s Gage Gallery—on Michigan Avenue… belies the grim urban reality this show so vividly documents,” but apart from this introductory sentence, he forgets the context of the show for the rest of the review. After reading Zhong’s piece about exploitation of urban environments, I cringed at the thought of these “temporary tombstones” (created by the living who experience the tragedy of losing loved ones to street violence) on display for those walking down Michigan Avenue. Not many people who find themselves on Michigan Ave, particularly inside that “glitzy art gallery,” likely have any experience with this type of mourning. Street art dedicated to lost loved ones are put on display for those who can afford to step foot on Michigan Ave remind me too much of the same cultural trends and attitudes that drive gentrification. Art in urban areas in seen as cool, hip, and edgy by those who have the luxury of visiting the creativity without having to stay for the violence or live in low income housing.

However, the exhibition at the Gage Gallery is trying to do something other than just appropriate street art and memories for the entertainment of the wealthy. There is some value in creating a space for these stories to be heard. The exhibition brings these tragedies into a different context to remind others of deaths that should not be ignored, even if they go unsolved. Zhong’s critique of Streetopia offers insight into a slightly different but no less complex situation. Artists often have no choice but to live in lower income areas because that’s where they can afford to live, and it’s hardly their fault that the creative environments and the works they create attract people there. Artists probably welcome publicity and exposure the crowds bring with them, but soon the popularity gets out of hand and other residents are being pushed out of another neighborhood that is being appropriated by richer folks. There is a delicate and difficult line that must be walked when experiencing “urban” art; on the one hand, exposure of these ideas is valuable to those who create the art or experience the hardships behind the art as is true of the “Not Forgotten” show. However, this experience can unfortunately become pure entertainment when the origin of the art is overlooked in favor of the aesthetic that is deemed “trendy” by society.

Zhong’s critique seems to capture the nuance of this type of art appreciation that the book Streetwise presents as problematic. She also acknowledges some of the contradictions within the book that reinforce how complicated the issue is:

“One article attempts to encourage activism by declaring that actions determine a person’s value, not race nor class. Only a few pages before that statement did the author thoroughly shit in white suburban transplants for their invocation of gentrification anywhere they go, as if class and race are the only way to talk about a certain subset of people.”

Zhong does not deny the problem, in fact throughout the article she discusses the negative effects of gentrification as portrayed through the book. In this quote she is admitting a shortcoming of one of the authors who perhaps oversimplifies the situation. Nonetheless, Zhong presents the book as a way to gain perspective of this situation while suggesting ways to combat it—a feature that Pohlad’s critique fails to highlight. Based solely on Pohlad’s critique (never having seen the art exhibition), “Not Forgotten” is a moving showcase of urban art and grief, but it stops there. Pohlad compliments the emotional effectiveness of the curation, but its context on Michigan Ave seems to distance it too much from reality. Pohlad describes it in beautiful terms, but if the pieces are seen just as art, then this too separates them from a sense of realness that is necessary for change. If urban art is presented more as an aesthetic than movements, then it will superficially enjoyed instead of absorbed meaningfully by society.

 

 

image: http://art.newcity.com/2016/10/24/meaningful-streets/