Another Contribution to the Dicussion of the Artists' Role in Gentrification

First of all, it’s encouraging to see that my article caused at least enough of a stir to warrant its own critique, because that was half of its purpose. I hope this conversation doesn’t end up isolated between myself and a single critic, especially one that doesn’t seem to actually be affiliated with Rock Paper Scissors despite their defensive posture. In order for meaningful action to be taken against the forces that drive gentrification, we must have a clear understanding of how it works in the first place.

To clarify, I did not and have never suggested that the sole responsibility for gentrification or development lies on art, artists, or the art scene. In fact, gentrification is a large-scale, long-term project of capitalism, the starting point of which could be traced back to the large infrastructural projects that devastated neighborhoods (like the freeways and BART station in West Oakland, for example.) The maneuvers of capital and politicians advanced this process step by step, until we get to where we are today—and of course, they aren’t finished by a long shot.

My critique is not that the blame should be placed squarely upon the artists, but that artists do share the responsibility to a certain extent. Anyone that wishes to refute this may just as well take it up with Rock Paper Scissors themselves, who take credit for this in their statement, albeit in a more positive light. And it’s not to be understated, the enthusiasm the city and artists share for revitalizing poor neighborhoods, an enthusiasm that continues to be shared even after the veil has been lifted showing us all what it truly means: an assault of capital. As a response, the editor of my original piece offered the explanation that even “the activities of a radical project can at times be recuperated” but this is to miss the point as well. To build a “creative culture” that is not fundamentally and intrinsically connected to a fierce antagonism with the forces of domination is not a radical project.

This is what it means to pick sides, as I wrote in my original critique. The way that the art scene is used by developers to attract capital is precisely because it is ambiguously political. You can be a co-op, or a horizontal collective, your gallery can host so-called “radical art,” and despite all of this, it is not perceived as a threat. Just look at Banksy—his edgy, oh-so-political stencils are auctioned off for tens of thousands of dollars. In the end, the aesthetic of revolution doesn’t so much bother the capitalists as does an actual inclination towards revolt.

And what would fighting gentrification be, if not revolt? Certainly not just surviving, not limping along, following the flow of displacement away from the metropolis. My intent has never been to discourage solidarity from those facing eviction, in fact I clearly call for that solidarity. To expect such a call to be in jest simply underscores the desperate nature of the situation. But evictions have been attempted before, sometimes successful, and always worth it. Behind barricades and during standoffs, comrades and accomplices can find each other and build bonds that will outlast any single struggle. I don’t need to brag about my personal accomplishments, but we can see across the Bay Area for the past several years many different attempts to prevent evictions of all sorts; whether it’s squatted houses or plazas, wild spaces or urban gardens, or just helping a family stay in their home.

And of course, we cannot limit ourselves to simply defending what already exists, revolt must generalize, and take an offensive position. But for now, we must start from where we are: being absolutely crushed. As I stated before, in order to take action, we must clarify the processes at hand, reveal our own complicities, in order to better sabotage their functioning. The time to act was yesterday, but it’s better late than never.