Quemain stated, “…the world of contemporary art has a centre of gravity which revolves around a duopoly formed by the US on the one hand and a small number of Western European countries on the other hand…” (Halle). Although nowadays people like to call every widespread phenomenon “global,” Halle and Tiso reiterate the distinctions Mann draw among different types of dissemination. Applying Mann’s typology to Quemain’s statement, we get Halle and Tiso’s conclusion that the proliferation of contemporary art is “macro-regional” rather than “global.” It is true that today the arts of many countries around the globe are in an interactive contact with each other, but the major players in the world of contemporary art are concentrated on the top several countries, and even within these countries, they can be traced back to key cities and neighborhoods. Thus, today’s phenomenon of the growth of contemporary art is “transnational but regionally bounded” (Halle). In the U.S. particularly, the most popular and influential art district from which most participants in major art fairs come is undoubtedly the Chelsea. For example, 21% of the galleries represented in Basel 2007 were from New York and of that 21%, 65% were from Chelsea (Halle). The rise of Chelsea, however, only happened within the last two decades, and it happened with an incredible speed, dwarfing SoHo, once the most dynamic art district. From 1996 to 2007, the number of Chelsea galleries increased from 12 to at least 260, while that of SoHo fell to about 44 as many SoHo galleries relocated in Chelsea.
Once cannot help but wonder, what caused this drastic shift of the art locus in New York? As many of the readings for today say, the biggest reason seems to have been the rise in rent in the SoHo area. Once SoHo became popular not only for art galleries but for big fashion stores and restaurants, the galleries could not afford to stay in the neighborhood any longer. One gallery moved after another, the majority of them to Chelsea.
Hong Kong’s art scene seems to be experiencing something quite similar to New York’s. Galleries in Hong Kong started to move out of their So Ho, “South of Hollywood Road,” more than a decade ago when restaurants, bars and galleries moved into it, “pushing out old-fashioned butchers, grocers and soy-sauce makers” (Lau). SoHo got “crowded and expensive,” so some galleries relocated in an adjoining area called NoHo, for “North of Hollywood,” or BoHo, for “Below Hollywood” (Lau). Lau says, “the more adventurous, or perhaps just the more rent-sensitive, are increasingly moving to the old working-class districts of Sheung Wan, Western and Sai Ying Pun,” all of them within a 30-minute walk from the SoHo district (Lau) (see map). Sound familiar?
A gallery in SoHo, Hong Kong
A gallery in NoHo, Hong Kong
http://i.cdn.cnngo.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/inline_image_624x416/2010/07/22/7-madhouse1.jpg 
GoogleMap image of Hong Kong (A: SoHo, B: Sheung Wan, C: Western, D: Sai Ying Pun)
.
Going back to New York, New York’s Chelsea started to burgeon mainly because of its comparatively low rent, but to remain as the new center for the contemporary art scene, Chelsea had to have something that makes it unique and attractive. In addition to the big, elite galleries, Chelsea has small galleries owned by individuals. In fact, roughly 60 per cent (210 galleries) of all the galleries in Chelsea are non-elite and have an upper floor location (Halle).
Here are what the Chelsea galleries offer:
Free quality shows for the public - Despite the prolific “bad art” produced in the neighborhood as Jerry Saltz points out, one can also find “good art” among the bad ones, and all for free. Chelsea’s art is about major, on-going issues in people’s lives, so the audience is able to relate and connect to it (Halle).
Freedom and opportunities for artists - Many galleries in Chelsea and the artists whose works they exhibit work on the “art for art’s sake” doctrine (Halle).
A sense of community (“occupational community of gallerists”(Halle))
In addition to these characteristics, Elizabeth Currid suggests that the innate quality of the neighborhood (its industrial chicness) complemented the avant-garde quality of contemporary art (Currid 553). “The art and the neighborhood did not just arise together in the sense of coincident timing but were intrinsic to one another’s existence” (Currid 553). Moreover, although more than 95% of the people who come to the galleries come just to look with no intention of any purchase, these visitors create a kind of social backdrop for the “hip” place to be (Halle, Currid 534). Government-aided projects like the High Line can also make the neighborhood more attractive.
But could the same thing from which SoHo suffered happen to Chelsea in the future? The rent in Chelsea should go up as the area gets more crowded. A small island city, New York’s rental market can get pretty ridiculous. Learning from the SoHo debacle, some galleries with sufficient wherewithal bought their spaces, but the vast majority (90% according to jerry Saltz) signed leases (Halle). What will these galleries do when the rent soars up at the end of their lease? And I wonder, what’s the point in staying in Chelsea if the vast majority migrates to another region, bringing New York’s contemporary art with them?
Currid points out that besides the real estate problem, changes in market value of artifact produced in the area are also important. If the price of the artworks produced in Chelsea go down, Chelsea will not able to survive regardless of how cheap rents are (Currid 535). Should the taste of the consumers change, or they can’t afford to hang big paintings on the walls of their ever-crowding homes, Chelsea will suffer. The galleries will have to either move as a group or dissipate. Jerry Saltz believes that the dissolution of the “one-stop art district” that is Chelsea can be good. Only time will tell.
Works Cited
Currid, Elizabeth. "Bohemia as Subculture; "Bohemia" as Industry: Art, Culture and Economic Development." Journal of Planning Literature. 368-383.
Halle, David, and Elizabeth Tiso. "Contemporary Art: A 'Global and Local Perspective via New York's Chelsea District." UCLA On-Line Working Paper Series. California Center for Population Research: 2007.
Lau, Joyce Hor-chung. “SoHo, NoHo. Sound Familiar?” The New York Times. 29 Oct. 2010. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/arts/30iht-sckong.html>.
Saltz, Jerry. "No Next Chelsea." Modern Painters. October 2006.