April 27, 2003
Panel on 'Young Creatives' (Part Two)
After the presentation by Joe Cortright came the panel discussion, which Cielo Lutino opened with the question, "Why did you move here?"
Jacob Brostoff wanted to start a career as a city planner, and Portland, he said, has a "strong sense of urban place," a "strong sense of city." Lars Holstrom (who spent some time in Bellingham, WA, due to an opportunity to run a business similar to Portland's late, lamented X-Ray Cafe) placed most of his emphasis on his "extended community" here, adding that the oppotunities for activites such as cycling were a factor as well. Jamin London had a dream to come to Portland to re-start a Colorado punk band with a friend (she described it, at one point, as "kindergarden porno rock" unless I completely misheard her -- someone will no doubt correct me if I did). Lori Mason labelled it a "quality of life decision," and pegged "community" as a reason to remain here. Tiffany Lee Brown also echoed the previous mentions of "community," and further said that Portland represents a "perfect mixture" which provides a place to develop one's own creativity.
The matter of how one "sustains the bohemian lifestyle" was raised, although I don't quite recall a solid answer. Someone made a point of mentioning that Portland has "low barriers to entry" when it comes to a particular kind of culture. In general, I think this was an early indication of some of the later discussion on Portland's "do it yourself" cultural environment.
One questioner asked about the tensions between artists and gentrification -- in that creatives are often some of the first to move into an unpopular area, followed by hangers-on and consumers of their work and activity, leading, ultimately, to the seemingly-inevitable influx of Yuppies. It was suggested at one point that civi policies such as low-interest loans offered to artists who commit to stay in a region might help.
But this led to another question: Why privilege artists over others? Of course, what was left mostly unsaid (although I suspect that it was udnerstood) was that society already privileges certain parties over others -- it's just that often that privilege is extended to those who either already have money and power, or those to whom the calculus of money and power can easily be applied.
Tiffany Lee Brown suggested that one way to characterize this dynamic so that artists could obtain some of these civic benefits is to offer the context that the "bohemian artist community" is "useful" to the society around it.
This was something of a point of contention, as Brostoff countered that creatives should be considered to have "independent merit" rather than considered as "bait."
There are fair arguments on both sides of this, but I couldn't help thinking about an argument put forth by Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals in which he explains that while we might have a more ideal world towards which we are trying to work, we have to do so within the context of the world in which we actually live. So, to my mind, it might be that, while creatives of course have "independent merit," if they want to push towards a world in which that is more widely recognized, it might be necessary to play the game of being "bait" (as it were) for other aspects of society which help a society grow, at least for a time.
Holstrom raised the issue of "sustainability" in the context of young creatives and their migrations to certain metropolitan areas around the country. Specifically, the matter of whether a region should be "stealing talent" from elsewhere or "cultivating" what it already has. This goes back, in a sense, to something Cortright said earlier: "The people who come here will change the dynamic of the palce and who it will attract next."
I might have this out of order, but it's relevant to this point. Somewhere along the line, a questioner suggested that what an area needed was athletes -- prompting a general consensus that Portland is not a town for watching people play sports, but a town for people to engage in sports themselves. But for me, there was a more central point, and it is related to the question of "stealing" versus "cultivating" talent.
What this questioner was suggeesting was taking too overt a hand in trying to shape and mold the Portland region's culture. But that runs the risk of alienating the people here who have already grown their own culture(s). Residents and leaders need to have faith in their own people, and nurture what is already here. As that "native" culture grows, it will attract people to the region for whom that culture is important.
We have to grow out culture, not cynically calculate what sort of culture we "should have" and thaen impose it from above.
But back to the panel session, where someone made a comment full of academia-speak about "nurturing a habitat of urbanity." Honestly, why can't the priests of higher education just speak like people rather than just building these bizarre little walls of language which has to be translated or decoded into common sense? His point was legitimate, but everytime an overly-academic personality opens their mouth this way, its inherent smug elitism turns my attention off.
Brostoff made the observation that downtown Portland still has a large number of locally-owned small businesses, which is a comparatively rarity.
And then Brostoff launched into the matter of diversity -- and just what we mean by it. Do we seek tolerance, visibility, or integration? This is, strangely, where my notes get overbearingly thin, and you might want to just watch the archived video for this. But there was some pointed discussion as to how race and class is neglected in such considerations.
Most interestingly to me is that I didn't get the sense that anyone present was too timid to want to tackle this question, but no one seemed to have a firm enough grasp on where to truly begin. It was one of the moments in the session which made me contemplate that what Portland should do next is hold a full conference on "young creatives" using the discussions at this panel as the jumping off point. This diversity issue is one that needs to be taken on, but this just wasn't the time or place for it to happen.
There was then a brief "tour" through the intersection of "do it yourself" and politics, as the panel was asked about their political activities, and their voting habits. Much was said about how many people in the "young creatives" age grouping don't seem to participate.
Tiffany Lee Brown (and others) made a point, however, of describing how accessible local government here is compared to many other places, and certainly to other levels of government. And Brostoff pointed out that there are "relatively few barriers to meaningful political participation" in Portland.
Of course, listening to, and reading, comments directed towards the Citywide Public Involvement Standards Task Force, it's clear that many of those who do try to remain engaged and involved directly with the city, seem to have the most to say about how the process doesn't work as well as it should.
Curiously, though, Portland doesn't really seem to suffer from a lack of activism, especially of the DIY variety. But the most vocal activists are the very ones who disdain City Hall politics the most. I was left to wonder if that's why there might be some degree of un-involvement: That the critics tend to be the loudest.
Not that I don't offer my own fair share of City Hall criticism, but it's not because I think city politcs can't work at all.
Which brings us to that point I inevitably reach in trying to make a semi-coherent map of my notes at which they just sort of end. But in a sense, that perfectly illustrates a point I made above: That this session should be considered s atrting point for something deeper and more involved.
So, when does the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies organize a weekend-long conference on the issues touched upon in this panel discussion?