「一個乾燥溫暖的秋日，我們穿上了自己最得意的行頭：我的是垮掉派涼鞋和破披巾，羅伯特戴着他的『愛與和平』珠串，穿着羊皮馬甲。我們坐地鐵到第四大街西站，在華盛頓廣場待了一個下午。我們一起喝着保溫瓶裡的咖啡，看着如織的遊客、癮君子和民謠歌手。激動的革命者散發着反戰傳單，棋手也吸引着他們自己的觀眾，大家共存在由唇槍舌劍、手鼓和犬吠交織而成的持續的嗡嗡聲裡……」──帕蒂．史密斯（Patti Smith）《只是孩子》
這是帕蒂．史密斯筆下60年代末的紐約，那個時代，曼哈頓下城是貧窮藝術家的天堂，低廉的租金把藝術家集聚在一起，藝術家經營着自己的另類藝術空間，相互幫忙佈置展覽，也相互充當彼此的觀眾，各種跨界的、意想不到的藝術實驗都得到自己的一片土壤。
將近半個世紀過去，當年的另類藝術以先鋒的名字寫進了藝術史，送進了美術館和拍賣行，然而，紐約下城的藝術風光卻不再。2010年，帕蒂．史密斯出席一場公共講座，有人問她，如今年輕人來到紐約，還可以像她當年那樣嗎？帕蒂說，去找一個新的城市去吧，「紐約仍然是一個了不起的城市，但它已對那些貧窮的人、那個創意蓬勃的社群關上了大門。」
藝術家策展人朱莉•奥特（Julie Ault）在《紐約的另類藝術：1965年至1985年》中寫道，六七十年代紐約的藝術氛圍是由一系列的因素推動的：「大量甚至是過量的藝術人口；都市人口在文化、種族上的多樣性；社會運動和自由抗爭的政治環境；低廉的商住空間；大量的閒置都市用地；規範較少的公共空間；上升的公共文化資助；作為重要的藝術之都的城市。」環顧這眾多的因素，今天的紐約變化最大的，就是再難有藝術家可以負擔得起的空間和土地了。2015年都市未來（研究）中心（Center for an Urban Future）發佈的《創意紐約》報告顯示，高昂的租金正在把藝術家趕走，也將那些創意的群落原地解散。
藝術家將何去何從？90年代以來，世界各地的許多城市都想打造像曼哈頓下城的蘇豪、東村那樣的藝術家村，可是為甚麼它們卻沒有獲得藝術家的青睞？一個主要的原因是，這些藝術家村的營運者沒有注意到，藝術家聚集起來的原因。美國西北大學藝術系的副教授Lane Relyea寫道：「（藝術圈）變成一個更龐大的系統，並且擴散到全國各地，因為每年各地藝術碩士的人數都在持續增長……藝術家必須在商業以外找到另類的生存方式……他們既是創作者，也是組織者，他們必須聯合在一起，在內部產生相互的認可、地位、知名度和履歷。」換句話說，藝術家村並不只是地理意義上的的藝術家集合，而是一個由藝術家組成的小型社會，成員之間相互依存、相互協助以求發展。如果沒有形成這種能夠為藝術家提供支持的網絡，所謂的藝術家村就只是徒有其名。
從東村、蘇豪走出來的明星藝術家，似乎給許多人講述了文創致富的故事，甚至催生了許多文化地產的項目，但它們卻很難打造成具有活力的藝術社區，不是由於聚集的藝術家不夠多不夠好，或者不夠接近藝術市場的中心，而是未能重視以及支持藝術家社群的發展。事實上，在全球化的今天，藝術市場無遠弗屆，藝術人才全球流通，許多新興藝術城市就如同當年的紐約下城，正是另類藝術實踐的搖籃，也提供着主流藝術系統革新所需要的動力。
去找一個新的城市去吧，帕蒂說。找一個新的藝術家的應許之地。
原載於 C2文創誌 第二十七期
One Indian summer day we dressed in our favourite things, me in my beatnik sandals and ragged scarves, and Robert with his love beads and sheepskin vest. We took the subway to West Fourth Street and spent the afternoon in Washington Square. We shared coffee from a thermos, watching the stream of tourists, stoners, and folksingers. Agitated revolutionaries distributed antiwar leaflets. Chess players drew a crowd of their own. Everyone coexisted within the continuous drone of verbal diatribes, bongos, and barking dogs. ──Just Kids by Patti Smith
This is New York at the late 60s described by Patti Smith. In that era, downtown Manhattan was the paradise for poor artists. Low rents brought artists together. They ran their own alternative art spaces, helping each other for installing exhibitions and being audiences for each other. Various cross-sector and unexpected art experiments got their own place.
Nearly a half century has passed, alternative arts in those years were written in art history with the name of pioneer and entered in art museums as well as auction companies. However, the scenery of downtown New York was no longer still. In 2010, Patti Smith attended a public lecture where someone asked her that nowadays when young people come to New York, could they be like her? Patti said that they should find a new city. “New York is still an amazing city, but it closed the door for those who are poor and creative.”
In the book Alternative Art in New York, 1965-1985, artist and exhibition curator Julie Ault wrote that the art atmosphere in the 60s and 70s of New York was promoted by several factors: “A lot or even excess art population; diversity of culture and race among urban population; political environment of social movement and freedom fight; cheap commercial and residential spaces; lots of vacant urban lands; public spaces with less restriction; rising public cultural funding; as an important city for art.” Considering these numerous factors, the biggest change in New York is that the artists are difficult to afford the spaces and land. According to the report released by Centre for an Urban Future in 2015, expensive rents are driving the artists away and dissolving the creativities.
Where should artists go? From the 90s, many cities around the world tried to build into the artisan village like SoHo, East Village in downtown Manhattan. But why they were never admired by artists? One main reason is that the operators of these villages never noticed the reason why the artists gathered. An associate professor of art at the North-Western University, Lane Relyea, wrote: “(Art circle) became a larger system and spread across the country as the number of master of art was constantly increasing...artists should find other alternative ways of living besides business...they are creators as well as organisers. They must band together to generate mutual recognition, status, popularity and record.” In other words, artisan village is not just the geographical collection of artists, but a small society composed by artists where members rely on and assist each other for development. If this connection that could provide support for artists fails to form, these artisan villages could only exist in name.
The star artists from East Village and SoHo seem to illustrate many stories about becoming rich through cultural creation and even promote many items of cultural real estate. But they are hard to build into the energetic cultural communities, it is not because the number of artists is not enough or the qualities are not good, nor far away from the centre of art market. Instead, it is because they did not support and take the development of artists’ community seriously. As a matter of fact, in the globalised world today, art market could be reached no matter how far and art talents travel around the globe. Many new art cities just like downtown New York those years, which is the cradle of practice for alternative art and provides power for the innovation of mainstream art system.
“Just go and find a new city”, Patti said. To find a new promised land for artists.
Source: C2 Issue 27