That's about right.
There's something to say about this, but I'm not smart enough to say it. But I think areas like Sedona, or parts of Brooklyn, or even Park City (never been there) have a similar thing going on.
I personally think there is an irreconcilable schism between these two concepts of bohemianism and material wealth, since bohemia traditionally was a theoretical place where artists and free spirits where could live and work cheaply and behave unconventionally. There was poverty, and maybe some poor hygiene as well.
Which does not describe Venice. Not anymore. So then who are these folks?
2 comments:
Good post. Park City and Sedona have both tilted into just rich sans the bohemian. At least that's my take. Jackson Hole as well. Venice has a little more edge than all of these places because it's more accessible to all types of people. No crazy street performers in Park City.
As I am up in Park City at the moment, this post also struck me as somewhat apropos. I think, though, under the radar, there are still people who just want to live "on the mountain" here, as our mutual colleague once said, middlebrow--but you don't see them shopping and dining in the big leagues so much. I wonder, though, about Venice--who can afford to live in any of those SoCal beach towns? Maybe people can, what do I know. But was that ever not the case? again, I don't know. I keep thinking back to my youth--there still seemed something wild about those South Bay beach towns. Wilder than now, I think.
Post a Comment