"
. With Does the New York art world have a problem with street art?
“Despite its American origins, Street Art is now centered in Britain,” announces The Guardian (via Arts Journal).
What this seems to mean is that the market for street art has been driven by Britain:
The auction houses here have been quick to sell it, and the media has turned it into a running news story. Faile’s comic-book inspired stencilwork will appear in the Tate Modern show, but founders Patrick McNeil and Patrick Miller, who talk over each other on speakerphone from their New York studio, say their art world isn’t as receptive. ‘New York has such a history of this art, but institutions are waiting to see what happens before they open the doors to it. The art is starting to surface in New York Sotheby’s and Christie’s, but it wouldn’t be if it weren’t for the excitement [in the UK].’
I’m not sure what to make of Faile dropping references to Sotheby’s and Christie’s. However, I do think it’s fair to say that for the most part the New York art world has not quite grasped the significance of the street art that started to emerge in the 1990s, and has grown throughout the 21st century. Yeah, some street artists have galleries and have done shows, but there hasn’t really been a sense of a big, important movement that’s been going for a decade, or longer. Why is that? Maybe it’s because of the earlier, late 1970s/1980s version of graffiti moving into the galleries (Haring, Basquiat, and a variety of Wild Style types), so there’s some kind of been-there, done-that attitude.
But I never could figure out why, for example, Beautiful Losers never got a New York venue. It should have been at MoMa, like three years ago. (Even if Moma did something similar tomorrow, I think it would feel very, very late.) And many of the street artists (or artists drawing on similar influences) who were in Beautiful Losers really made their name in the 1990s. Lots of new people have emerged since then (although not so many in the last few years, I’d argue), in New York, yes, but in L.A. and San Francisco and elsewhere as well.
So far as I know, only Banksy, of all people, has rated extensive mainstream notice in the form of things like a New Yorker feature. It’s weird.
.
.
Kim Fellner's book 
.
A
Reader Comments
Interesting point.
Potentially a couple parts of the answer:
Banksy’s celebrity in the UK
The fact that the NY art world embraced graffiti in the 80’s and it didn’t sell
Strange relationship between Jeffery Dietch and the rest of NY art world..
New York is the most discerning place in the world. We have sensational creative talent everywhere. Most of “modern” day st art is simply not that good – ESPECIALLY when you take something out of context ie. street > gallery. Leave it to the Brits to get excited over the ho-hum…
I don’t know. Shephard Fairey’s work seems way more pervasive in New York (and America) than Banksy, whether people know it’s him or not. He might not pull the same stunts that garner huge excitement but his Obey logo and brand is everywhere (even in Family Guy).
I just noticed that the ICA in Boston is doing a Fairly show soon. Horrible. While the absolutely laughable argument that NY is simply too cool to get excited about street art is clearly wrong, I do think it’s an issue of quality. Fairey and Banksy are both facile, obvious, and merchandise driven. They’re like artists that make fake ironic tee shirts, and their audience is the kinds of people who still wear them.
Facile is the word. Rob made a resonant point about the self-described culture of streetwear enthusiasts — something like, there seems to be nothing beyond this culture beyond buying t-shirts and sneakers. Just because you really like a piece of album art or wheat paste, doesn’t make it Art-art. Train graffitti and murals were/are a good deal more ingenuous than “street art”.
Apol.s — that point was in the “Brand Underground” article (see categories, right).
alot of the “street art” in NYC is just plain unoriginal work put up by a bunch of wannabe/follower types who are late to the game….this bubbles up to the art world.
Re the miscellaneous hater responses: Tastes differ, and think what you want, and I’m sure you’re much more “discerning” than the rest of us because you live in New York, or, uh, whatever.
My point wasn’t to advocate any particular artist, nor to say anything about New Yorkers in general. My point was that the mainstream New York art world — the gatekeepers, if you like — such as the big galleries and the museums, almost completely ignored contemporary American (not just New York) street art throughout a very creative period that resonated with big chunks of the public. For better or for worse, the usual role of those gatekeepers in New York in particular is pick up on what’s happening and run with it. It’s very strange to me that in this case, it’s finally happening, incredibly late … and because of the British market.
Also, as Inominous suggests, I’m not exactly a fanboy for the scene, I’m an outside observer. Although I would say the train graffiti and murals was mixed, just as the contemporary scene is mixed — some creative, some lame, etc. But in both cases, a big enough deal to pay attention to.
Christian: I agree, his work is more pervasive than ever and certainly more so than Banksy, but, yeah, my point is more about acceptance from cultural authorities and gatekeeper (who have embraced Banksy, for reasons I don’t quite get).
Abe: I suspect your “didn’t sell” about the the 1980s is exactly right. Sort of a lingering sense of “that was a fad and we won’t get fooled again,” combined with a failure to recognize the difference between that scene and the more recent version.
The Dietch point is also interesting. I’ve never really quite figured out why he has backed some and not others. I have to think about how he fits in.
Thanks all.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to hate on anyone except the guy who said that New Yorkers are so much cooler than brits, that’s why they don’t embrace Banksey.
I agree there’s incredible work being done on the street, I just think that Fairey and Banksey are the popular examples of that work, but not the good ones. I think curatorial work hasn’t happened in a meaningful way due to a lack of related academic study/difficultly of access/ lack of saleability). It’s hard to make money off these things, and close study follows the money.
BTW Brooklyn Museum did a show of graffiti in 2006.
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/graffiti/
Skunkworks: Understood, and no offense meant.
And actually I had forgotten about that Brooklyn Museum show, but it’s a good example of what puzzles me: The ongoing rediscovery of that generation, while basically ignoring the current one.
I’ m most interested in your point about academic study, that’s not an issue I’d thought about (at least not exactly in that way).