112 Greene Street is where the Soho art scene began. It was
the first “artist space” where you could use the rooms to do you artwork and
show it, badly needed by artists who couldn’t afford studios. The galleries
were still uptown, it would still be a few years before Soho became “galleryland,”
but for an artist with zero following, it was great to be able to make AND show
your art in the same space. When I say that it was frequented by artists with
no following, I mean the artists who did not have a gallery to show their work,
nor a loyal group of fans. Much of the art shown at 112 Greene is now gone.
Jeffrey Lew, the
original owner of the building, describes the 1960’s art galleries as being
rather kitchy. The art was “doilies and bowls of fruit” and he wanted something
a bit more raw. I imagine the art galleries were catering to the decorators, so
112 Greene Street, with its “old crazies in dirty clothes” would’ve been shocking
even by modern art standards. Keep in mind that Andy Warhol, the city’s most
iconic weirdo-artist, was the darling of the upper classes. His studio wasn’t
in Soho either; it was at Union Square, and he and his crowd didn’t appreciate
dirty, grungy types. 112 Greene Street would probably not have been on his
radar. Lew, along with Gordon Matta-Clark, would also found White Columns to
exhibit emerging artists.
112 Greene Street
is full of interviews with the artists of the period, most of whom I’d never
heard of. There’s a 1970 photo of George Trakas, with his assemblage called “The
Piece That Went Through The Floor” which I bet would NOT have been appreciated
by the city’s gallery elite. Gordon Matta-Clark’s painting “Walls Paper” is a
repeating silkscreened mural, similar in style to Andy Warhol, and I admit that’s
what I thought it was at first. But Unlike Warhol’s celebrity pop culture
fascination, Walls Paper appears to depict a beat up doorway. Kind of rough
compared to Warhol, just like most of the artwork that survives from the space.
This book is the
result of an exhibit at the David Zwirner Gallery in 2011, which I didn’t know
of at the time. I take for granted that I loved going to Soho as a teenager in
the early 1990’s, but I never learned about the history of the neighborhood. It
was something of a wasteland in the early 70’s, with its shuttered factories
and lack of amenities. The one thing it had on its side, which would become an
asset to developers, was transportation. The neighborhood was well served by
the subway lines, so when real estate values rose, Soho was converted into more
expensive loft apartments. Lew’s White Columns gallery would move several times
through Soho, eventually relocating to the Meatpacking District.
The artists
depicted in this book are renowned in the art world, but not in the way that
the more famous ones are. From the photos and the interviews, you can see the
roughness of their world, which was, compared to others, independent. The book
portrays them as having none of the financial patronage that other had, but at
the same time they are free to do as they like. Kind of like Shirley Chisolm (a
politician of the time) calling her platform “unbought and unbossed.” Yeah, she
lost the Democratic nomination to George McGovern, but at least she did it her
way. I bet she would’ve liked these artists, who were, in a way, homesteaders
in a new land. Another factor in
112 Greene Street is that the artists were often self-taught. Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein,
and Chuck Close all had formal training, and Warhol had been a commercial
artist. These new “baby boom” artists were often self-taught,
Another book
reviewed on this site, titled “In Love With Art,” explains the way of life in
the area at the time. It was relatively safe compared to other areas of the
time, because there was nothing to steal. Who would break into a loft if they
knew they’d find only art supplies? I bet the most expensive thing you’d have
found at 112 Greene Street was a radio, and even radios were becoming cheaper
than ever (the area that would be taken over by the World Trade Center was
known as Radio Row). There also weren’t any flophouses or SRO’s in the
neighborhood, so you didn’t have alcoholics and junkies coming out at night.
The Bowery, with its famous flophouses and dive bars, was half a mile away, and
the winos and junkies rarely strayed that far from their haunts. Soho may in
fact have been a safer neighborhood than the Upper West Side, which was
notorious for muggings, thanks to expensive and cheap housing side by side. If
Soho was safe, it was a food desert, and the only restaurants in the area were
probably diners that catered to working men. The Soho food scene was over a
decade away.
I think that I can
sum up 112 Greene Street as an anti-thesis to Warhol and pop art. It’s all
about risk takers in a formal industrial area, making art on a micro budget.
Williamsburg, in Brooklyn, would become just like Soho by the mid 1990’s, with
cheap housing, converted factories, and lousy eateries. Today it’s gentrified,
like Soho in the 80’s. Gowanus still has something of an edge to it, and the
Gowanus Art Space is open to artists who need studios. Even Gowanus is becoming
more and more pricey for artists, so it remains to seen which neighborhood will
be on the radar.
No comments:
Post a Comment