“Acknowledging a problem is the initial step towards a remedy,” asserts Josh Kline in his piece “New York Real Estate and the Ruin of American Art,” which was published online last week, sparking discussions in the art community. The issue Kline highlights is difficult to dispute: the inequitable real estate market in New York City is influencing the art world regarding creation, exhibition, and sales. “Under the current circumstances, meaningful art relevant to our society may not be sustainable,” he claims.
Why respond to an article with a fundamentally correct premise? Because recognizing a problem must be followed by understanding its causes to seek a solution. Timing is also crucial; acknowledging an issue long after damage has occurred is less useful. Identifying a crisis post-mortem is an easy task.
Kline begins by stating: “American art faces a polycrisis that involves a lack of faith in and support for artists born post-1975.” The polycrisis markers he cites, which are indeed significant, predominantly affect millennials (born 1982-1996) and Gen Zs (1997-2010): economic recessions, the aftermath of Covid-19, rising housing costs due to private equity, student debt, declining wages, and substantial wealth transfers to the affluent.
Artists born pre-1975, barring a privileged few, are also affected by these issues. Kline’s references to “boomer galleries” and “boomer artists” occupying too much space in an already limited field for post-1975 artists seem like superficial criticisms. Generational rhetoric is no substitute for structural analysis if the aim is to foster the solidarities necessary for resolution. The age of gallerists isn’t the problem; it’s the wealth concentration among a few that creates a ripple effect, leading to an emphasis on blockbuster names over indie experimentation.
While landlords have priced artists out of studios, it’s also essential to acknowledge how artists contribute to gentrification, displacing boomers from their neighborhoods. As Krzysztof Wodiczko and Rosalyn Deutsche have explored, artists have long facilitated real estate speculation, especially through public works. Recognizing this role is crucial.
Black, Indigenous, POC, and many White women artists have long suffered from limited access to studio space and exhibition opportunities. The urgency arises now because these limitations are starting to impact more privileged artists who have traditionally had access to prestigious career milestones. Had attention been paid earlier to those without such access, a political movement might have emerged to address these issues.
The problem is so deep-rooted that even New York’s newly elected mayor has prioritized it. Young artists Kline advises to relocate have largely realized this on their own. We understand the problem’s location; the task now is finding solutions. Kline outlines why current remedies are likely to fail, from transforming office spaces into studios to artist-run spaces being beholden to financial interests. His only proposed solution is for young artists to leave New York, but I believe there are other options.
We need affordable studios and housing, more artist support, and opportunities for artist-run spaces. Class focus is essential, acknowledging that much art by non-White, non-male artists is rooted in class analysis. While Kline’s article resonates with current frustrations, there is hope: a new mayor, a new culture czar, and a renewed determination among artists to preserve New York’s cultural scene. I choose to support those striving for change rather than lament a long-standing problem.
