Urban Safaris: Graffiti Sites Considered for Heritage Protection
Simon at Ballardian says Melbourne is not quite as lovely as the Treehugger article I linked to suggests:
[The] Treehugger article only explores Melbourne’s inner city. The suburbs are a different matter. Perhaps the overseas versions might weed out the worrying strain of Mad Max style behaviour that sees cyclists as game to be hunted.
But then again, such behaviour inspired Mad Max itself, one of the finest films ever made.
Well, it may not be a “pedestrian paradise,” but Melbourne is in the middle of a debate that could lead to some curious developments in urban landscapes around the world. Australia’s National Trust and Heritage Victoria is considering graffiti for heritage protection (via.)
Scott Hilditch, chief executive of Graffiti Hurts Australia, says that protecting graffiti would effectively condone acts of vandalism and cost the Australian government over $260 million (U.S. $250 million) a year to clean up.
Some artists oppose the idea as well, protesting that it is contrary to the spirit of the art form itself. Melbourne curator and artist Andrew Mac says it would interfere with the natural process of street art: “The work is ephemeral. It’s not meant to last. It lasts purely as long as the weather and other graffiti artists allow it to last.” Mac also feels that the councils backing protection may have real estate motives in mind, such as promoting graffiti sites to fuel tourism.
The Banksy House
A London suburban Victorian terrace house tagged by Banksy famously went for bid at four hundred thousand dollars, “a buyer would receive the mural—with the house thrown in ‘for free.’” The house was later destroyed by “vandals” — nevertheless — maybe therein lies the answer to our national housing crisis.
We could send Swoon and Elbow-Toe to the poorest neighborhoods in Cleveland, Washington Dc, Detroit, and elsewhere. Why stop at the cities? We could tag barns in North Dakota too. 
I’d pay a lot to live in a Swoon-tagged house. And I’d certainly move in a neighborhood I’d never otherwise consider in order to do so. But bidding would be fierce. We could see these properties turning into hipster summer homes, for when the trust fund PBR drinkers want to rough it in the “Common People” sense.
Anyone can see street art, not just the people willing to step in a gallery. And that adds value. The more eyes on a work of art, (usually) the more valuable it becomes (although diminishing marginal returns plays here too.) This is why artists will often reduce the price of their work to display it in a museum rather than sell it to someone for his personal collection.
If art economics is difficult to understand, the economics of street art is unprecedented in its confusion. In England, Banksy is as famous as Damon Alburn and earl grey tea. His prints sell for millions. But this month, one of his pieces was whitewashed in Northern London.
Art critics know that street art and graffiti refer to very different things. As Hrag Vartanian put it, “What appears to differentiate street art from its graffiti predecessor are two things: the self-consciousness in its conversation with the city and its lack of the aggression and violence.” But city workers can’t be bothered to appreciate the difference, and maybe there is aesthetic merit to be gleaned from its aggressive older cousin.
I think the Australian preservationists are on to something, and one day we all will be thinking bigger. Maybe downtown Detroit will be heralded as an architecture splendor — an UNESCO site, the modern day Cesky Krumlov. Tourists in fannypacks and shorts will motorbus out to see it, and marvel at the public artwork as they would walking through Florence, Italy.
Already tourists enjoy the spectacle of poverty. When I was in South Africa a few years ago, i was shocked at the opportunities to visit the shantytowns (”Townships”) by bus tours. Brazil is notorious for its “Favela tours.” Here’s a good post on poverty tourism by Vagabondish, explaining how to minimize the exploitation of the people who live in these areas:
I think that if it’s managed by real, interested professionals, and sensible ground rules are set – don’t take photographs, don’t give money or candy away (donate through a suitable charity or organization instead), stay in small groups, and so on – then perhaps poverty tourism really does provide some benefits for the locals. And at this stage in its development, when it’s mostly undertaken by fairly seasoned travelers who are genuinely interested in understanding more about a country and its people, it seems that such tours can truly be managed in this way. My fear is that poverty tourism could become a more mainstream activity, and money-hungry travel agents will start sending in large air-conditioned buses full of ignorant tourists snapping hundreds of pictures, and then the rot will really set in.
Still, I can’t feel comfortable with the idea of the New Orleans disaster tours. Something about busing out to see a someone’s personal possessions strewn about, reduced to trash and chaos, bothers me more than seeing human faces of a tragedy.
Art by Elbow-Toe
Related links:
- The Very Public Life of Street Art by Hrag Vartanian in the Brooklyn Rail
- My Love for You interviews Elbow Toe
- Shadow Cities by Robert Neuwirth
- Graffiti artist Mike Baca (standing trial for seven years for graffiti vandalism and trespassing, which is twice the usual sentence in NY) Juxtapoz
Musicians audition to play in New York subways. The Music Under New York (MUNY) program strives “to reflect the culture and diversity of the people of New York City.” But would Yoko Ono make the cut? Daniel Johnston? At least it guarantees the police can’t kick you out. Here are two MTA-approved bands The Renaissance Street Singers (”Early sacred music”) and Two Man Gentlemen Band (”Fast-paced Old-time Country quartet.”) Update: more on this here.
Low-Tech Movement: Not Just Pedestrian Pride
Is technological progress a bell-shaped curve and are we approaching its decline? It seems that way sometimes when you think about our country’s embittered relationship with the automobile.
There is a silly horror movie called Bloodcar; I can’t quite recommend it, but conceptually it is interesting — gas prices are at an impossible cost so suburban cars become ruins. A crazed auto-mechanic stuffs a body under the hood and discovers human blood powers the machine. Then….
We won’t ever reach that point of desperation … not just in terms of cannibalistic survival mechanisms. Remember Julian Simon’s bet with Paul R. Ehrlich? Tradeoffs are made and substitutes emerge eventually over time… just never as quickly as we’d like. The nature of scarcity is little consolation when you’re standing by the pump today and watching the numbers flicker up to twice what you’d expect to cover groceries for the week.
The best solution for most of us city-dwellers seems to be abandoning the car entirely. And for everyone else it is moving to the city:
We can see even now communities where for reasons of land scarcity people have been forced to adopt a lifestyle that uses much less energy – places like Manhattan, London or Singapore. Manhattan, for example, has 67,000 people per square mile. Kensington and Chelsea in London have 37,000 people per square mile. Housing space per person is much smaller, people walk or take public transit to work and to shop, and energy usage is correspondingly much lower, despite the inhabitants being very rich.
So the future after peak oil will involve living in such dense urban settings where destinations are walkable or bikeable, just as in pre-industrial cities (the city of London in 1801 had 100,000 inhabitants in one square mile). Homes will be much smaller, but instead of caverns of off-white sheet rock, we will spend our money in making much more attractive interiors. Nights will be darker. We will not have retail outlets lit up like the glare of the midday sun in Death Valley.
The New Amsterdam Project, recently profiled in the CS Monitor, is a wonderful Boston group providing “human-powered delivery services,” bikes instead of trucks. Environmental concern plays the major role, but the social experience is also a big part of it.
There’s also the circular bureaucracy that strangles every urban car-owner — the parking tickets, the meter maids and speed cameras, the waking up to a brick in your back window — oil is rarely the only grounds for divorce. It’s an example of bureaucracy slowly eating itself, until the people give up on it entirely.
But what if this movement went beyond the automobile, and sparked a trend against everything battery powered? Low-tech Magazine, the website that “doubts on technology,” has a number of low-tech alternatives with modern uses, some really ingenious like consumer goods transported through underground pipelines.
Remember several years ago, how those who managed without a cellphone and laptop were jokingly refered to as neo-luddites? There was a starving-artist chic to it, but today anyone without either is just considered really poor. Now, frustration with technology’s demands is the cliche of modern life. Surely, I’m not alone in going weekends with my cellphone on mute in a box someplace, when I know I just don’t want to think about anyone other than myself.
Related links:
-
A collection of interesting ideas curated by
Joanne McNeil. About ➚
-
Sponsors
Good Books
