Day 13
The SPU parked at the Pacific Northwest College of Art, where the project opened its doors in collaboration with the Portland Institute of Contemporary Art and the Regional Arts and Culture Council's In Situ program. The roundtable discussion had the highest attendance so far, with a capacity audience in the Feldman Gallery of PNCA.
The discussion, introduced by host Kristan Kennedy from PICA, included artists Harrell Fletcher and Sam Gould, and Ben Cannon, a former Rhoades Scholar and a recently elected state representative and strong supporter of the arts in the region. I initiated the discussion by speaking about the liberal history of Portland and wanting to hear perspectives from the speakers regarding the apparent apathy of political participation in the United States. Ben Cannon started with useful statistics, mentioning that only 35% of registered voters in Oregon actually cast ballots in the recent election. “ Although Portalnd is a bastion of liberal thought, it remains apathetic like the rest of the country.”
Sam Gould, who is part of Red76, a Portland-based collective that merges art and activism, mentioned that “we have a communal obligation that is being eroded”. Someone in the audience praised Venezuela, saying that they were impressed by the degree or civic participation in the country. An audience member suggested that the problem of lack of participation lied in the fact that U.S. citizens remain liberal only in principle because they don’t experience the negative impacts in their lives, so their stances are more theoretical and academic. There was a debate as to what represents true involvement and action—after another audience member went on about describing small gestures like writing letters to representatives and growing vegetables in backyards. I asked if the true question was on how far individuals were willing to sacrifice their personal situation in order to affect change. Overall, however, the discussion seem to center more on strategies to make difference, but not on what kind of principles or values would be supported.
Another, fairly unresolved debate, revolved around the role of the artist as mediator or spokesperson for social issues. Generally, the debate stalled on definitions and comparisons. Harold Fletcher, who currently has an exhibition in New York entitled “The American War”, was actually skeptical on any particular effect that an artist have toward a particular issue: “I don’t think being an artist is any kind of offering to anything. I don’t think being an artist has any kind of meaning at all. I think any profession has the potential to engage in civic and political meaning, but in America we don’t emphasize this.” Sam Gould mentioned that to him political involvement could take many forms: “in some cases, going to a soccer game can be a very political act”.
When the discussion gravitated toward the community-building aspect of art, someone commented on “American idol”, suggesting that this TV program, based on collective voting, was an art form that generates a sense of community. This generated another unresolved debate again on the boundaries between mass culture and art. I brought up Serge Guilbaut’s comment in Vancouver regarding the danger of seeing community building as something inherently good.
The identity of Portland liberalism was constantly under scrutiny in the discussion. An audience member pointed out a bumper sticker in the city that reads “Keep Portland Weird”. Some audience members thought that this sticker helped lighten up the heavy “liberal guilt” in the city that is often discussed very seriously. While few conclusions were reached at the discussion, it was largely agreed that it was hard to expect true involvement and motivation when one is not personally facing a state of crisis.