From the 'Genius or Vandal' exhibit on Banksy (photo: Julia Vitullo-Martin)
Like many of Banksy’s drawings, Fever’s “Banksy: Genius or Vandal?” is a title that hits its subject square on the head. This exhibit, which is well worth seeing, should hit home with New Yorkers since New York is where the contemporary art-or-vandalism controversy began in the 1960s. (There are those who argue that graffiti dates to the Paleolithic Lascaux cave paintings in southwestern France, but we’ll put that aside.)
Much early subway art-or-vandalism was crude and surly—Mayor John Lindsay, for one, loathed the tagging, and vowed to wipe it off the face of the IRT. But tagging soon evolved to a much higher level. In the 1970s African-American and Latino writers and artists, many from the Bronx and Northern Manhattan, began covering subway cars with elaborate paintings, made possible by the widely available aerosol can. Meant to be viewed in motion, the painted cars roared through stations, astonishing and often infuriating commuters. What many commentators regard as subway art seriously took off during New York’s fiscal crisis. The MTA yards were virtually unpatrolled, and crews of writers painted freely, producing the peak of what historian Martha Cooper called “outlaw art.”
Banksy’s Local Sojourn
Thought to have been born in 1974 in Bristol, England, Banksy has clearly held New York in a special place in his heart. He entitled his month-long 2013 “residency” in New York “Better Out Than In,” re-asserting his preferred outsider status while simultaneously intimating his privileged education. The title is after Paul Cézanne’s decree that “all pictures painted inside, in the studio, will never be as good as those done outside.”
Banksy announced that he would create one new piece on New York streets each day in October, including “elaborate graffiti, large scale street sculpture, video installations, and substandard performance art.” He told the Village Voice that his plan was “to live here, react to things, see the sights—and paint on them. Some of it will be pretty elaborate, and some will just be a scrawl on a toilet wall.”
Why New York? He wrote, “New York calls to graffiti writers like a dirty old lighthouse. We all want to prove ourselves here. I chose it for the high foot traffic and the amount of hiding places. Maybe I should be somewhere more relevant, like Beijing or Moscow, but the pizza isn’t as good.”
What to Make of Banksy’s Art
Despite his thousands of artworks through the decades, Banksy has managed to keep his identity unconfirmed. He is clearly a man of the left, concerned about issues of equity and justice, immigration, pollution, war, authoritarianism, defiance, and popular culture. His work can be brilliant, even electrifying, and also deeply offensive.
The exhibit does a good job of displaying the full range of Banksy’s approach in what it calls an “unprecedented immersion” that includes a VR session that’s compelling but a little unnerving. You sit still as his handiworks meander and lurch around you in 360 degrees.
Using his website and Instagram, he has distanced himself from the Fever exhibit, posting: “You know it’s got nothing to do with me, right? I don’t charge people to see my art unless there’s a fairground wheel.”
Of the 80+ works in Genius or Vandal, some have been borrowed from international private collections and have seldom been seen publicly before now. Others, such as Banksy’s etchings on the Bethlehem Wall and his “Walled-Off Hotel” across the street, have been photographed and slightly enlarged for display. Arranged in a large, dark room of their own, the Palestinian photographs draw diverse visitors.
His work in New York has mainly been appealing, even conciliatory—no Virgin Marys labeled “toxic” or dying princesses in Cinderella carriages. On the shuttered door of Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club on West 51st Street, he painted a dapper man in a dinner jacket holding flowers (now removed). Nothing vulgar.
One of Banksy’s more endearing New York pieces is “Boy with a hammer” on West 79th Street, across from Zabar’s, which has helped preserve it and protect it from vandalism. Mostly “Boy” maintains a solitary presence but also attracts visitors to pose beneath the hammer, head on the hydrant.
But Then There’s Banksy’s Speech
There’s Banksy’s art, which is one thing, and then there’s his speech, which tends to be without nuance. He enraged many New York fans in 2013 when he wrote on his website about One World Trade Center that “The biggest eyesore in New York isn’t the graffiti, it’s under construction at ground zero. That building is a disaster. Well no, disasters are interesting. One World Trade Center is a non-event. It’s vanilla. It looks like something they would build in Canada.”
Having insulted our neighbor to the north he had worse to say: “You currently have under construction a one thousand foot tall sign that reads, ‘New York – we lost our nerve.’ One World Trade Center declares the glory days of New York are gone.”
Many progressives found themselves defending 1WTC, which few actually loved. Others were simply dumb-founded. Journalist Errol Louis wrote, “New York is a city long accustomed to attention-seeking huckster-artists who push–and exceed–the limits of decency and good taste. But even in a town that gave the world Warhol, Madonna, Diddy and Lady Gaga, the Banksy screed against the World Trade Center site was a bit much to bear.”
Genius or Vandal, which will let you decide for yourself what you think, takes roughly two hours to explore. Adult tickets are $34.50. Limited availability. Location: 526 6th Avenue (SE corner of 14th Street at 6th Ave)
***
Julia Vitullo-Martin is a long-time editor and writer on cities. On Twitter @JuliaManhattan
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
NYC Youth (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)
As New York City emerges from the pandemic and prepares for a new Mayor and City Council, elected officials must pursue policies that will make our city more equitable and prosperous. This is the moment to collectively invest in the talent and professional skills of New York City’s home-grown, diverse, and dynamic young people and to shift how we think about the relationship between schooling and workforce development.
Let’s cultivate our best resources -- New York City youth -- to compete in today’s jobs marketplace and expand our city’s competitive advantage in job talent by devoting attention to those who have been historically left behind.
COVID-19 unmasked pre-existing disparities in New York, where our bustling economy disproportionately benefited the highest earners. A deeper trend is that individuals born and schooled in New York, particularly people of color, have not been able to compete for the best jobs in the city against U.S.-born workers from out of state.
New York is missing out by not having a strategy to develop the talent of these young people and to create pathways to meaningful careers for the 1.6 million students who attend New York City Department of Education schools and the City University of New York, CUNY. At the same time, employers, including those in high-paying industries like tech and finance, report struggling to find entry-level candidates with the relevant and “soft” skills today’s workplaces require.
As a Bronx business owner and recent graduate of New York City public schools, respectively, we see the exposure of these deep inequities and the skills gap as both a challenge and an opportunity. New York businesses want to hire more diverse local talent and students want better pathways to successful careers. We must first move away from our outdated, binary way of thinking about school and work, and discard conventional notions about technical/vocational education. Both educators and employers, together, need to support students to prepare for the workforce and access pathways to pursue their career goals.
There is a growing movement in New York City—supported by employers, schools, nonprofits, researchers, students, and parents—who understand that the typically envisioned linear system of “high school, then college, then a good career” is not a given in today’s economy and doesn’t work for many students. That’s why New York’s leading companies are beginning to work with the DOE and CUNY to design rigorous, college accredited, paid internships and apprenticeships that equip high school and community college students with real-world professional skills needed to land in-demand, well-paying 21st-century jobs.
For me, Jessica, as a local employer leading a company based in the Bronx for 60 years, investing time and resources into young people is a way to have a tremendous impact on the future workforce. My grandparents founded the company and my grandmother, a public school guidance counselor, was a believer in pairing work with education. I aim to continue that tradition by bringing in young people as paid interns while they are still in school and introducing them to the skills necessary to succeed in business.
New York City businesses, like mine, can join the movement and build a system of work-based learning that includes co-op and internship opportunities for academic credit and for pay. It’s a win-win strategy that enables students to earn and learn, while developing social capital that leads to gainful employment as they embark on adulthood.
While higher income families rely on their networks and connections, many Black and Latino students often miss out on the high-quality internships, apprenticeships, and mentoring that lead to career success. These experiences are vital. New York City public school students like me, Naseem, need work opportunities that connect back to the classroom.
For me, it only took one internship with Madison Square Garden during high school to change my life. From there I took advantage of every opportunity to explore different career paths so that when I arrived at college I knew what I wanted to major in. I graduated this spring from George Washington University and am headed to law school, and having internships helped give me direction and mentors that I needed. All students should have access to these opportunities, not only a select few.
New York City has long attracted talent from across the world. However, by failing to nurture the potential in the young people who are born and schooled here, our city is wasting a tremendous opportunity.
We need our next Mayor and City Council to champion work-based learning models that braid learning from work into traditional academic pathways by providing employers and educators with incentives to participate and invest in collaboration. By transforming our local talent development system and linking relevant skills to education, we can launch our young people into promising careers, ensure our employers have a diverse talent pipeline to draw from, and power a thriving, inclusive economy.
***
Jessica Johnson is CEO & President of Johnson Security Bureau. Naseem Haamid is a recent graduate of George Washington University, a Community Organizer at Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice, and a graduate of Fannie Lou Hamer Freedom High School who will be starting law school at the University of the District of Columbia. On Twitter @msbigjess & @NaseemHaamid.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Mayor de Blasio and school kids (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)
Despite New York City Department of Education officials’ claims during this past week’s City Council hearing that the city’s school reopening plan for this fall represents “the gold standard,” the reality is that the plan is riddled with profound flaws.
First, and perhaps most egregiously, the DOE refused to dedicate a single penny of the additional $8 billion in federal and state education funds to lower class sizes, despite the City Council advocating for $250 million to be spent for that purpose, and despite DOE’s own surveys showing that smaller classes are the top priority of K-12 parents.
Lowering class sizes would ensure a safer and more productive learning environment for students. This is particularly critical now, given the need for social distancing and stronger academic support due to the disruption of the learning environment caused by the pandemic.
In place of the $250 million the Council proposed for this purpose, the DOE allocated only $18 million for a small program targeting 72 elementary schools, while encouraging principals to use the funds for push-in teachers rather than actually forming new classes to lower class sizes. This could lead to more overcrowding and an even less safe classroom environment and would not have the same positive impact on learning.
The DOE’s refusal to specifically allocate any of the additional $530 million in state Foundation Aid funds for smaller classes is especially flagrant because these funds resulted from the Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision. In this case, New York’s highest court concluded excessive class sizes denied New York City students their right to the sound, basic education guaranteed under the state’s constitution, yet class sizes have risen since then. Further, if principals choose to use Contracts for Excellence (C4E) funds for this purpose, they will actually be forced to spend 40% extra to cover teachers’ pension and benefits, which DOE usually pays for centrally.
The second major flaw in the DOE’s plan is that unlike most other districts, the DOE has refused to offer a remote learning option to New York City students, unless they fall into one of a limited number of vulnerable health categories. This is despite the advocacy of many parents, elected officials, and organizations who have been clamoring for a remote option.
This is particularly troubling because the DOE’s planned safety precautions are simply insufficient. While universal masking will be required and all school staff will (eventually) be vaccinated, the three feet of social distancing that the DOE has said would be provided at most schools will be impossible to implement at most schools, unless many students do not attend classes in person.
Originally, the DOE claimed only about 76 schools would not be able to achieve three feet of social distancing in the coming school year, though Mark Cannizzaro, president of the principals and administrators union, publicly disputed this and said the majority of New York City’s roughly 1,700 public schools would not be able to achieve social distancing given crowding.
Then the DOE altered its calculations by allotting less space per student in its formula, while also assuming principals’ offices and other administrative spaces could be used as classrooms. Frankly, this is highly unrealistic. The DOE now claims only about 50 of the most overcrowded schools will not be able to achieve social distancing, but they have refused to release this list of schools or say what these schools will do to avoid unsafe overcrowding.
Rather than finding additional space by leasing closed parochial school buildings or moving more pre-K classes into community-based centers, the DOE has continued along its customary track for the last year and a half, pretending the need for social distancing does not exist.
Since March 2020, the city has co-located 26 additional schools in existing buildings, and tried to close an entire elementary school in the Bronx that was able to achieve social distancing, unlike overcrowded schools nearby, with plans to leave the building empty – until community and parent protest stopped it.
Throughout the pandemic, the Department of Education has also continued to expand the number of pre-K and 3-K students in elementary school buildings. According to our analysis, about 230 elementary schools with pre-K and/or 3-K programs were already at or over 100% capacity. This fall, the DOE is adding 26 more 3-K programs to already overcrowded schools – despite the fact that this space could have been used to provide a safer environment for the rest of the student population.
In its new health and safety protocols, the DOE claims, “every classroom across New York City has been provided with two HEPA purifiers,” though many dispute this statement’s accuracy. While the CDC and most independent experts recommend air cleaners that use HEPA filters, the Intellipure model that DOE purchased for $43 million lacks these filters. Indeed, independent experts rank the model among the most expensive and least efficient on the market.
But the biggest disappointment is the laxity of the DOE’s covid testing plan: only 10% of unvaccinated students whose parents have submitted consent forms will be tested – and then, only once every two weeks. This represents a sharp decrease in covid testing compared to last year, when 20% of all students were tested weekly. The loosening of the covid testing protocol in schools is indefensible, given that the Delta variant is far more transmissible and there will be far more overcrowding in classrooms, lunchrooms, and other spaces as fewer than 40% students attended school in-person last year. In addition, school-age children currently have the highest covid positivity rate in the city.
The DOE’s new protocol also does not require quarantining or testing of vaccinated students or staff. Yet with Delta, breakthrough infections are on the rise. During the first week of August, here in New York City alone, there were nearly 3,000 reported breakthrough infections,. Many times that number were likely asymptomatic and able to transmit the virus. Given these facts, excluding vaccinated teachers and students from random testing seems extremely unwise.
The DOE’s extremely limited testing regimen is also not aligned with the CDC recommendations, which advise weekly testing for students in moderate to high transmission zones.
Source: CDC
According to the CDC tracker, every New York City borough is currently a high transmission zone, ranging from 2.7% positivity rate in Manhattan to 4.8% in the Bronx.
In contrast, Los Angeles schools, the second largest in the nation after New York’s, are mandating weekly testing for all students and staff, vaccinated or not, as are some other California school districts. According to Education Week, “public health experts said the frequency and scale of LAUSD’s weekly testing is appropriate given the threat of the Delta variant.” Chicago public schools are offering weekly testing to all students and staff.
As reported in the Washington Post, a new study projects that testing half of all elementary school students every week would substantially reduce schools’ expected covid infection rate after three months from 49% to 22%. One can assume the rate would fall even lower if all students were tested weekly instead.
The Medical Advisory Group (MAG) of Newton public schools in Massachusetts is headed by Dr. Ashish Jha, Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. This group also recommends weekly testing for all students and staff, and points out that if all asymptomatic students who are in close contact with infected individuals are given rapid tests, they might not have to be quarantined, which would be very helpful for preventing further disruptions to their education. They also recommend that all eligible students be mandated to receive vaccinations, as at least one California school district is doing.
The inadequate testing protocol that New York City has adopted is even more disappointing considering that the federal government has promised to cover the full cost of staffing and covid testing for any school district that requests it: “FEMA will fund 100% of COVID-19 testing costs and will not require non-federal matching funds through December 31, 2021.” Accordingly, Los Angeles expects FEMA to pay for most of the expense of its ambitious testing program.
While the New York City DOE’s Covid testing regime is inexplicably weak, the city is mandating more standardized testing to be given at every school across the city, at a cost of $36 million – twice the amount it is spending to hire push-in teachers or lower class sizes. According to a DOE instructional manual sent to principals, these formative assessments will be required to be administered to all students three times a year, including Acadience in grades K-2, and either MAP or iReady online exams in the other grades. If schools want to use different exams, they must be approved by the DOE central office first.
Yet there is little or no research showing these standardized tests will help students learn or support their recovery. Few if any independent peer-reviewed evaluations have offered evidence for their validity or demonstrated that their use has any positive impact on student learning. One of the few randomized studies showed that administering the MAP exams had “no significant effect” on achievement. Many teachers have critiqued iReady exams, and many students despise them.
The DOE’s insistence that schools require every student to take these exams at least three times a year also belies the claim in their instructional manual that they will be focusing on “creating and sustaining school cultures where students, staff and families can experience joy and thrive” this year, by creating a “welcoming and affirming school environment.”
If the DOE really wants to ensure a more successful and safer school year, rather than require more ineffective and stressful standardized testing, the city should provide smaller classes and employ more rigorous health and safety protections, including weekly covid testing for all students and staff.
***
Leonie Haimson is the Executive Director of Class Size Matters. On Twitter @leoniehaimson.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.