2008 Woodie Awards
On art and expression for money
Salwa Halloway
Issue date: 10/6/08 Section: Opinions
I like art, and I like people who encourage true artistic expression. And because of this love for art, I cannot support the efforts of Podmajersky, Incorporated. They are a family-owned real estate business that claims to create a "complete living and working environment focused on quality of life and anchored by the arts, culture and great design." But really, I'm having trouble seeing the honor in transforming East Pilsen into a middle-class community of artists through the eradication of former habitants, increased property rent and the creation of a rich, superficial artistic community.
Pilsen has a history of being a residential place for immigrants, of which the most recent are Mexicans. In addition, its vintage-style lofts, non-commercial charm and lower rent have attracted many artists. By the 1960s, Podmajersky Jr. began purchasing dilapidated low-rise buildings and renting them out to artists. Now, as advertised on their website, the cost of a one-bedroom residence with a den can run up to $995 per month.
In a blog entitled "Art Pilsen," a Chicago-based artist wrote, "the Podmajerskies have also been widely criticized for displacing the predominantly working class residents of the neighborhood by capitalizing off of real estate that is marketed exclusively to middle class artists. Currently operating under the slogan 'Building Soho in Chicago,' the Podmajerskies as a social force provoke many questions of the use (or abuse) of artists as catalysts for such forms of urban development." (artpilsen.blogspot.com)
Another anonymous blogger laments, "[Pilsen is] not a community anymore, it's a money-grabbing business and nothing more."
Some claim that the Podmajerskys' interest is genuine, and they applaud their efforts in developing an artistic community. Yet how genuine can their love of art be if, in 2007, residents had to lead a campaign against them, because they wanted to turn a memorial garden into a parking lot? Do memorial gardens not qualify as being artistic enough? Or is it that they just might not generate enough money? After all, where are all these middle-class residents going to park their cars? Of course, I cannot refer to the cars of Pilsen's working class, because it's really just a matter of time before rent will go up and they'll be forced to abandon the neighborhood that was once a comforting home. Or, at least it appears this way.
It's a shame when something as personal and moving as art becomes a marketing ploy. Art is meant to provoke thought or even action. It's meant to comfort those in pain, bring awareness of certain issues, and invoke thought, change and awe. At the very least, it provides aesthetic pleasure to a multitude of people. It's a catharsis and a healer, a preserver and a destroyer, a catalyst and an emotional and spiritual guide. There is very little place for business in art. A true artist creates, because he or she was born to do it, because it gives him or her a high. And a true admirer realizes this aspect and completely appreciates it.
I wonder, what happened to the days on uninhibited expression and creation? Who gave people like the Podmajerskys, who clearly do not love art in its purest form, the right to use it for their personal financial gain?
Pilsen has a history of being a residential place for immigrants, of which the most recent are Mexicans. In addition, its vintage-style lofts, non-commercial charm and lower rent have attracted many artists. By the 1960s, Podmajersky Jr. began purchasing dilapidated low-rise buildings and renting them out to artists. Now, as advertised on their website, the cost of a one-bedroom residence with a den can run up to $995 per month.
In a blog entitled "Art Pilsen," a Chicago-based artist wrote, "the Podmajerskies have also been widely criticized for displacing the predominantly working class residents of the neighborhood by capitalizing off of real estate that is marketed exclusively to middle class artists. Currently operating under the slogan 'Building Soho in Chicago,' the Podmajerskies as a social force provoke many questions of the use (or abuse) of artists as catalysts for such forms of urban development." (artpilsen.blogspot.com)
Another anonymous blogger laments, "[Pilsen is] not a community anymore, it's a money-grabbing business and nothing more."
Some claim that the Podmajerskys' interest is genuine, and they applaud their efforts in developing an artistic community. Yet how genuine can their love of art be if, in 2007, residents had to lead a campaign against them, because they wanted to turn a memorial garden into a parking lot? Do memorial gardens not qualify as being artistic enough? Or is it that they just might not generate enough money? After all, where are all these middle-class residents going to park their cars? Of course, I cannot refer to the cars of Pilsen's working class, because it's really just a matter of time before rent will go up and they'll be forced to abandon the neighborhood that was once a comforting home. Or, at least it appears this way.
It's a shame when something as personal and moving as art becomes a marketing ploy. Art is meant to provoke thought or even action. It's meant to comfort those in pain, bring awareness of certain issues, and invoke thought, change and awe. At the very least, it provides aesthetic pleasure to a multitude of people. It's a catharsis and a healer, a preserver and a destroyer, a catalyst and an emotional and spiritual guide. There is very little place for business in art. A true artist creates, because he or she was born to do it, because it gives him or her a high. And a true admirer realizes this aspect and completely appreciates it.
I wonder, what happened to the days on uninhibited expression and creation? Who gave people like the Podmajerskys, who clearly do not love art in its purest form, the right to use it for their personal financial gain?
Be the first to comment on this story