‘Artwashing’ gentrification is a problem – but vilifying the artists involved is not the answer

October 5, 2017
The value of culture in regenerating cities has long been recognised. Sometimes this happens centrally,
whether via the commissioning of high profile public artworks, or the rebranding of city areas as cultural
quarters. But in many cities, culture led redevelopment occurs organically.
Artists, generally on relatively low incomes, move to areas of the city where rents are affordable. The
presence of the artists make the area interesting, leading to more interest in property in the area, and
ultimately, seeing the area develop. Sadly, this process usually ends with the artists having to move on, as
rents increase.
Councils and developers are now attempting to emulate these organic, artist-led processes, by
purposefully moving artists in to areas of cities which they wish to see developed. The presence of the
artists in this new contrived context is conceived, from the start, as an interim measure. In the worst cases,
it is intended as a distraction from the dirty business of clearance and demolition. This has been described
as “a cleansing process in which the artists moving into a burgeoning area were treated by developers as a
form of regenerative detergent”. Given such language, it is perhaps unsurprising that the artists involved
in these schemes are finding their work labelled “artwash”.
“Artwash” is a relatively new term. It seems to have first been used to critique corporate sponsorship of
the arts: large companies establishing a relationship with a cultural venue with the aim of improving their
reputation. BP, for example, has long sponsored the Tate galleries in London, something that has
prompted much protest. A spokesperson from one such protest group, Liberate Tate, explains: “Artwash
is the process whereby a company buys advertising space within a gallery in order to cover up negative
public image.”

Naming and shaming

But now accusations of artwashing are reaching beyond corporate sponsorship to apply to individual
artists in local communities. A new practice of naming and shaming artists working within the context of
gentrification, particularly in larger cities where large scale development is taking place, has seen some
artists working in social contexts accused of being “artwashing gentrifiers”. In extreme cases, galleries
and artists are being run out of town.
These recent, predominantly online attacks on artists and arts organisations have seen the artists being
named as responsible within the process. At best they are labelled as naive to the developer’s game, and
at worst complicit.
This practice is becoming particularly controversial in London because new development and fast
gentrification is reaching an all- time high, pushing more and more local populations out of their homes.
Questions around who is really to blame for such a damaging form of gentrification are becoming more
urgent. And more ugly.

What is the main point being made by the author of this text?

What is Gentrification?

How does the presence of artists contribute towards Gentrification?

What is 'Artwash'?

Do you think that criticism of artists in this context is justified?

Do you think that culture-led development is a valid method for urban regeneration?

How, do you think, can these negative effects be mitigated?