MORE ON THE INCUBATOR

The responses to the question of how best to spend the State monies allocated as an incubator for Portland’s "Creative Economy" clearly reveal an underlying difficulty .(see "Let’s Get Growing," by Sara Donnelly, May 24). Nearly all the respondents offered answers that implied a definition of the "Creative Economy" limited to their own particular needs and art forms. Individual artists gravitated toward affordable live/work space; those in the performing arts are similarly seeking low-cost or subsidized rehearsal and performing space; institutionally associated responders are looking for grants or new institutions. Furthermore, those responding were for the most part associated with a narrow slice of what many might consider the whole of the "Creative Economy." Among the absent; architects, Web designers, those who work in film or other media, and small-business entrepreneurs who sell the objects, employ the "creative" individuals, or frequent the institutions represented.

Anita Stewart offers a few sour grapes about PACA, perhaps the most significant previous attempt in Portland to nurture the "Creative Economy" in a unified way. Stewart notes that PACA tried "to be everything for everybody and in the end it was nothing to anybody." Some of us who attended the planning sessions that resulted in the formation of PACA expressed concern at the time that such organizations often stumble as they attempt to balance the divergent needs and interests of the varied stakeholders. That is not to say it can’t be accomplished but, rather, that it takes time, effort, and a holistic vision of what constitutes the cultural community. I can match Stewart bunch for bunch with sour grapes about the execution of PACA’s mandate, but remain more optimistic about the possibility that such an organization could serve a useful and beneficial role building a stronger and more synergistic creative economy.

Kudos to Dan Ho for raising the issue that Maine art needs to be supported by Mainers as well as collectors from New York or Boston. Dan’s comments dovetailed well with James Hoban’s observation about difficulty in getting those who live in the communities surrounding Portland to return to the city after work to attend performances and exhibitions.

Among the many items not mentioned by any respondent was the disconnect between the vitality and sheer number of exhibitions, events, performances, and art objects produced in the Greater Portland area and the relatively static and minimal press coverage devoted to that activity. While we might give Bob Keyes a MVP award for effort in the face of adversity at the Press Herald, and thank the handful of tireless freelancers who appear in the Phoenix or Forecaster, in truth, total arts coverage today is less than, or at best equal to, the coverage two decades ago.

My own "wish list" includes a robust Web site to provide information about and links to the individuals, businesses, and institutions of Portland’s creative economy; setting up funds for revolving "micro-loans" and "micro-grants"; strengthening and establishing ties between those in the "Creative Economy" and the traditional business community; organizing a group consisting of "creative" individuals and very small businesses and institutions that could take advantage of the Dirigo Health Plan or other group health insurance.

In the end, we return to the question of whether a revived PACA or a new institution or a city or state employee or some kind of committee (appointed? elected?) should be charged with making decisions and executing any, all, or none of the suggestions being offered. I only hope we don’t find ourselves a couple of years from now reading a Phoenix cover story examining why most of the Creative Economy incubator funding disappeared into another couple of "studies" and the pockets of a few administrators who never got outside the office.

Christopher White, arts resource service Windham

letter sent via email