cities for artists Archives

Cary Grant’s artist garret in “An Affair to Remember” Right. . .

I’m reading a great biography, that of the late artist David Wojnarowicz (“Fire in the Belly,” by Cynthia Carr) which is largely set in the milieu where he lived and worked, New York’s East Village.

David was part of that late 70s-80s punk/art/film/lit explosion that was centered there, when you could actually be a visual artist in Manhattan and support yourself working for the wages of a part-time busboy in a nightclub.

Those days are certainly gone — the old story is that the artists come in and make a run-down neighborhood more attractive to middle class people, gentrification ensues and then the artists get priced out of the neighborhood. That certainly happened in the East Village and other Bohemian enclaves in other cities.

In fact, none of the U.S. cities we normally think of on the “creative” spectrum — New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, etc — rank as affordable for such creative types anymore. Central cities have run out of colonization space. So – I pose the question, if one is a striving artistic type and can’t afford one of these cities, where do they go to create?

Here is a recent letter from Salon (regarding an article on on Manhattan density, but it’s about art space):

I lived in New York 20 years, as an artist; even saw what most people would consider huge success as an artist for most of it. But finally, it became so expensive that I couldn’t even afford a small room. While payments and opportunities were getting less and less. My stomach was literally eating itself in worry, so I left.

Then I moved to Paris, way too expensive (and less fun). So, I moved to Berlin…that was definitely cheaper, at first. And then more and more, and too difficult to get a real visa to stay. So then Amsterdam, all over UK, Scotland, Ireland…all became way too expensive for me to survive.

So finally, I moved to Bangkok; easy to stay legally, and very affordable. But now, it’s going up up up in price all the time, and a huge crackdown on visas; I’m paying more here now, than when I first moved to Manhattan. And the politics and corruption and political coups have taken their tole on me. (sic)

I just don’t know where artists are going to go soon, other than the grave.

So if even Bangkok is too pricey, where to? Well, never fear, I’ve scanned the Internet for you and this is what I’ve come up with:

You’ve probably figured it out, it’s going to be a smaller city. Just makes sense, after all, they are cheaper to live in. But what about the community that supports the artist — and by that, I don’t mean just money — what about inspiration, idea exchange, opportunities for exhibition/readings/performance? I suppose they’re all here, just not in the quantity or (perhaps) quality you find in a bigger place.

I’ll pick 10 in no particular order:

Portland, OR — or maybe Portland, ME — creative types and as of yet, not as heavy on the rent expense as the bigger cities. I wouldn’t want to live in a cliche — Portlandia, anyone? Though hey dude, I guess I do already. (Los Angeles)
New Orleans — I have relatives there, and have spent some decent amounts of time there, so I know it’s both cheap and creative. However, if you move, I’d put the emphasis on temporary – there will be another Katrina, for sure, and the entire city will probably be underwater in 100 years. Of course, we’ll all be dead then. But still.
Nashville — cheap rents still to be had according to craigslist. Music ain’t bad, either.
Detroit — yeah we have all seen the videos of the abandoned neighborhoods — and guess what, when a place has a lot of vacancy, it’s not expensive to live there. I could think of a lot of plusses – great “bones,” a lot of cultural inspiration, Canada is across the river. You might be a pioneer or a gentrifier, depending on how you think of it. I’m sure the long time residents would have their own ideas! But of all these places, I can imagine it might be the best in terms of space for visual art makers.
Las Vegas — ok you weren’t expecting this one. But, let’s look at some things – housing crash, anyone? Hit really hard here. Hasn’t recovered, which is good for you, dear renter. I know someone who just got a decent one bedroom there for $600. That’s less than half of what they’re going for in L.A. right now. Also, it’s got mostly great weather, proximity to Southern California, and there’s a shitload of money there. Long term, may have the opposite problem that New Orleans has (no water at all) but for the next few years, this might be a place to consider.

Many of them get listed contact viagra soft tablets number, e mail, or supply stay talk help. Make sure to watch it cialis professional uk out to hundreds, even thousands of people. The effect remains up to five to six hours hence supporting men to stay longer in bed. cialis cheapest levitra 100mg is the mainly prescribed dosage and evade practicing it more than once in duration of 24 hours. One should inquire all his queries relating to the pharmacy and being seen with drugs order cheap viagra to treat erectile Dysfunction.

Santa Fe — ok this was on a list, though I’ve often read that it’s too expensive to live in, it’s still cheaper than the reference cities of L.A., New York, San Francisco, Boston, etc. Galleries galore, amazing history, culture and there’s that light – Georgia O’Keeffe had a point.
Milwaukee — OK, this wasn’t on any list except my own! It’s a secret — always in the shadow of huge Chicago or hipper Madison, Milwaukee is often an architectural gem with very affordable, well constructed old buildings. It’a friendly place, has its problems (segregation, six months of winter) but it’s always had a vibrant arts community and a lot going on. I grew up there, and can tell you it’s a lot more cosmopolitan now than it was when I left in 1981. It’s a 90 minute ride on the train to Chicago’s Loop. Shares the same western shore of beautiful Lake Michigan with Chicago, too. (But don’t tell anybody. It’s my secret.)
Los Angeles — Ok, surprise, I put this on the list. Even though it’s always on the list of most unaffordable cities. I live here, and I know it can still be lived in on a budget, as I do that every day. One of the articles I referenced for this post lists small studio apartments at $1,500 a month – I’m sure you could find that, in West Hollywood or Santa Monica, but I rent a one bedroom for $550 less, in the close-in valley neighborhood of Valley Village. So it really is possible to live here cheaply, I’ve made a science of it, sort of. Of course, by actually living in L.A., you have access to people with money and creative clout and amazing things happening every day and every night — a huge boon to any kind of creative endeavor.
Tucson, Arizona — This made my list because it’s a place I’ve seriously considered moving — during an intensive around the country road trip I made back in 1996, I flagged three cities (Tucson, Austin and Fort Lauderdale) as smaller cities I thought I might be able to live in. Ft. Lauderdale is off the list, Austin is no longer small but Tucson remains — most “city comparison” sites I’ve gone to say it’s about 25-30% cheaper than Los Angeles. It’s a college town with a vibrant literary and large enough gay community. So I suspect, that because rents are so low, it would also have that loft or studio space visual artists need. And, if I get homesick, it’s less than a day’s drive (ok it’s a long day) from L.A., or an overnight train ride, or a 1.5 hour flight.