Joni Whitworth

Whitworth is founder of the Pacific Northwest Museum of Queer Art and lives in Portland.

The announcement that a renovation of the city-owned Keller Auditorium would cost $267 million raised eyebrows across Portland (“Plans for renovated Keller Auditorium include public plaza, reimagined entryway and plenty of bathrooms,” Sept. 28). It should also raise an uncomfortable, but timely, question: Is Keller ­– either a renovation or an even more expensive replacement – the best place to focus our time, energy, and resources?

According to the renovation estimate, some 19 months of construction and countless debates about architectural aesthetics later, we’d have a supposedly earthquake-proof auditorium. Would that address our city’s most pressing cultural needs? We should rethink this allocation of funds in favor of directly investing in the artists who make Portland a national hub of creativity, performance, and artistic community.

We are at a critical turning point, reassessing Portland’s support for its creative communities. Spending what little arts and culture resources we have left on a long, expensive renovation is irrational. Portland already has dynamic venues like the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall, Mississippi Studios, Crystal Ballroom, Polaris, the Wonder Ballroom and the Roseland Theater. I am hopeful that, eventually, we will have a new Artists Repertory Theatre. Large-scale shows can rent Moda Center if they need it. While the Keller has been the default venue for Broadway shows, supporting local independent theaters, actors, and playwrights keeps money in our community and allows audiences to form more personal relationships with art and artists. The potential benefits of enhancing one venue pale in comparison to the cultural renaissance direct funding could create.

The digital revolution, accelerated by the pandemic, has already shifted how we consume art. Social platforms have helped Portland artists, especially those underrepresented in traditional arts venues, step into new platforms and worldwide acclaim. Photographer Kait De Angelis and musician Onry are two artists who have found such broader reach. The success of online direct-to-audience platforms makes the case for direct funding undeniably compelling.

Traditional funding avenues disproportionately benefit institutions and do little to empower artists, especially those from marginalized communities. We need new models, and we already have precedents. The Interstate Firehouse Cultural Center recently funded 10 artists; Travel Portland offers two grants for emerging filmmakers. But this scale of effort will not help us revitalize Portland.

Less than half of the money for a proposed Keller renovation could support 10,000 artists with grants of $10,000 each– a career-changing amount. The impact would be unprecedented. Portland artists, who are already becoming adept at producing high-quality content on shoestring budgets, would certainly offer a strong return on the investment. We have LGBTQIA+ writers who want to host workshops and collaborate on anthologies. Black filmmakers and animators want to pay their crews a living wage. Latinx performance artists want support to stage more complex shows, reach broader audiences and tour rural Oregon. We have trans painters who need studios. We have Indigenous musicians who need recording equipment and want to produce events that are culturally significant to their communities. We have Deaf designers needing access to expensive software and hardware. Portland already runs on the brand these artists helped build. Fairly compensating them would contribute to a more inclusive, innovative city.

We should ask not how to update old infrastructure, but how to nourish, diversify, and strengthen Portland’s cultural landscape. Our investments must center human capital: the artists designing our city’s connected, vibrant, engaged future.