By Anya Gert
The practice of graffiti within the urban landscape was first popularized in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s in cities like New York and Philadelphia. Traditionally, graffiti thrives in poor, urban areas where individuals, especially youths, strive to protest and self-identify, instilling a sense of belonging and power over their environment. Because these graffitists come with little social privilege, their neighborhood streets become a channel for frustration. During the 1970s fiscal crisis in New York, black and Puerto Rican people were disproportionately affected by the city’s reduction in social services, and thus became the core of the city’s graffiti movement.
Throughout the years, graffiti evolved into various forms of public street art. While the movement started off with and continues to involve tagging—or painting a personal signature on a surface—the practice of painting murals was also popularized. Most of these forms of street art, up until recently, were considered acts of vandalism. However, in recent years, street murals on the surfaces of buildings, particularly in large cities, are now viewed as more “proper” art.
In fact, the medium has become so popular that property owners and real estate investors have begun to intentionally seek spaces with murals. This kind of art increases foot traffic and crowd appeal: the buildings and general area become landmarks, resulting in higher property values. Moreover, traditional investors are adapting to treat individual murals as if they have quantifiable value, like paintings do in the art market. This value is lumped into the price of the property, thus increasing its overall value.
However, the manner in which public art increases property values, particularly in areas where street art and graffiti thrive, exacerbates the gentrification of urban neighborhoods. Through its resulting neighborhood gentrification and its absorption into the private sector, the evolution of graffiti into muralism, curated or not, becomes inherently detrimental to the marginalized communities which graffiti was originally created to represent and empower. As this process of commercializing street art continues, the artists are forced to follow, eventually becoming part of the cycle.
For example, when graffiti was born in New York in the 1970s, one of its flourishing locations was within the Harlem community. Now, the area is severely gentrified; requests for new murals are frequent and building owners are using that to their advantage, knowing that these murals attract residents from higher income brackets. Similarly, in Chelsea, New York, a building increased in price, from $880,000 to $2,075,000, over four years, after Brazilian street artist Eduardo Kobra completed two murals on its surface.
Even outside the United States, in cities like London, neighborhoods with larger quantities of public
art are seeing greater relative increase in real estate prices. A 2016 study by the Warwick Business School traced Flickr images of street art tagged with locations and London, ultimately finding that higher property values were correlated to more image tags.
One prime example of putting a price on graffiti is seen in the Museum of Street Art in Queens, New York, also known as 5Pointz. The site embodies the transition from graffiti as art to graffiti as business, in which street art and real estate go hand in hand. The abandoned warehouse became a hub for New York graffiti artists in the early 2000s, protected by a pact between Gerald Wolkoff, the owner of the building, and Jonathan Cohen, a prominent graffiti artist, to allow graffitists to use the building to work on projects without having to worry about anti-graffiti laws. In 2013, Wolkoff backed out and the building was torn down, with Wolkoff ordered to pay $6.75 million in art damages. Although a win for the artists, the settlement ultimately indicated that the practice of graffiti was for sale, and that the medium has become inextricably linked to real estate.
Eventually, a Dutch hotel chain called CitizenM approached the artists who worked on 5Pointz, hoping to showcase their work in the form of a museum at their location on the Bowery. All of the artists agreed, despite the project’s relationship to a corporate client, an alliance that inherently undermines the history and communities responsible for the creation of graffiti. Marie-Cécile Flageul, the leader of the artists’ collective, mentioned that the opportunity was irresistible for the artists; it was virtually impossible to produce legal graffiti in New York at the time. In addition to supporting the 5Pointz artists, Flageul argued that the project also allowed graffitti to be commercially produced without contributing to displacement and gentrification.
While the situation at 5Pointz delineates the process of graffiti becoming more tightly associated with the private sector, a property in Miami called Wynwood Walls showcases how public art increases the cost of living within a neighborhood. Established in 2009 by the Goldman family, one of America’s wealthiest real estate developers, Wynwood Walls is an outdoor graffiti and mural venue featuring artists from around the globe. While the establishment is known for transforming the area into a place active with nightlife, art galleries, and festivals, Wynwood Walls has played a major role in displacing the local Puerto Rican community. Goldman Properties refers to its process of renovating neighborhoods as “gentlefication,” yet ironically, the development of Wynwood Walls has had the opposite effect. According to the Miami Herald, a property beside the Walls sold for $53.5 million in 2016, averaging $1,250 per square foot. Some developers aware of this trend have attempted to place some affordable units in the area, but nonetheless, not enough low-cost housing exists to counteract the rampant gentrification. Today’s street artists—ones employed by Goldman Properties as well other commercial ventures—are increasingly being asked to gentrify urban spaces and create a false sense of creative urban life and authenticity.
Yet it’s not solely the transition from traditional graffiti to muralism that changes the real estate market, but also the cyclical component of the market driving the type of street art produced. Compelled to follow the money, artists take on these projects and guide their art to produce marketable work. Some famous and desirable artists, like British street artist Banksy, contribute to the issue of privatization through the exclusive nature of their work.
Banksy’s anonymity and his global, mysteriously-appearing pieces have allowed him to build a notoriety for himself: if one of his murals goes up somewhere overnight, it automatically becomes a landmark. Plenty of other street artists and art critics have denounced Banksy as a sell-out, since his work undermines the original purpose of street art and graffiti. His pieces have even been extracted from buildings and gone for millions of dollars in auction, and the fact that criticism and illegal removal of his work won’t pull him out of hiding makes Banksy’s art even more desirable to the public.
The patterns which have led to more graffiti and murals in urban environments, particularly ones associated with property owners or famous artists, bring a new meaning to street art. This public art form is becoming inextricably linked to the attractiveness of public spaces, since urban aestheticism attracts attention and improves local economies. In places like Los Angeles, even city governments have also begun to sanction public art. On the search for employment, money, and legal street art opportunities, artists follow the private companies and governments into an inevitable cycle. Ultimately, these trends undermine the original intent of graffiti—a medium filled with passion for representation and identity—and in some cases, through the process of gentrification, prove detrimental to the marginalized communities that graffiti was intended to represent.