One way in which the process of gentrification in a neighborhood is aided is through anesthetization. A dilapidated area is unattractive to potential new residents or tourists, but a dilapidated area with street art suddenly becomes cool and hipster. With this new aesthetic and new residents come new commodities, such as expensive coffee (or matcha), vintage shops or wine bars. Subsequently, rent prices in the area increase, the reputation of the neighborhood improves and capital flows into it. But what about the artists behind the street art?

​

Artists typically have lower budgets for housing, and often do not pick and choose where they live but are forced to move into cheaper neighborhoods in their city. Once they start to slowly establish themselves in an area (forming groups, opening art studios), the local government (e.g., municipality counselors) and developers capitalize on what these artists could bring into the neighborhood. They might encourage various overt and permanent forms of expression, such as graffiti or murals. They can also commission specific projects, but it is also the mere presence of artists which attracts more affluent residents.

 

The question remains, who ultimately benefits from gentrification-by-art? If the rent prices rise, and the commissioned projects fulfill their purpose (determined by the commissioner), can the artists still sustain to live in the gentrified neighborhood? Or do they have to move another cheaper, more dilapidated neighborhood, only to be used as pawns in the gentrification game over and over? It seems like a vicious cycle of the artists’ dependency on low-income housing and contributing to gentrification.

 

With commissioned projects in a neighborhood which they don’t know well, didn’t grow up in or live in for a long time, a question arises whether the artists are able to create work that is meaningful to them and the community. Without a connection to the community, an understanding of its specific culture and dynamics, it is difficult to argue that it would be feasible. If it’s not meaningful to either party, then it is purely commodified – used as a hipster packaging of the buildings in the area to profit the investors, developers, or local government.

 

Artists are not always aware of their role in the gentrification of neighborhoods, but even this awareness doesn’t change their lower budget for housing. So, what can they do? Some ideas are to educate themselves and others, get involved or organize anti-gentrification projects, exhibitions, etc. and collaborate with non-artists, hear the locals’ perspective to get out of their bubble and assess the impact that they have on the community.