We have been quite busy over the past few months, and I am sorry to say that the blog has been cold for a while. But we will hopefully change that with the New Year. We had a very good year in 2014 and we’d like to take a moment to look ahead to 2015. Here are some of the things we are currently working on:
- An in-depth look at the artisanal fashion/apparel sector in metro Portland: Like the study we did of Portland Made Collective members last year, we are beginning with a survey that should be sent in the next few weeks. Following those results, we will be conducting interviews and site visits in the hope of constructing a snapshot of what one slice of Portland’s artisan economy looks like.
- Curating an artisanal database: Last summer we began the process of building a simple but rather large database of Portland-area artisans in an attempt to get an idea of exactly how much artisanal economic activity is occurring in Portland right now. This is obviously very difficult, as many of these small businesses are flitting in and out of existence. We have so far covered a diversity of sectors from beer to apparel to furniture to apothecary-type goods, and have recently expanded our queries into the realm of music with plans to move on to literature, digital artisanship, and food in the near future.
- Two writing projects: one based on the data we have collected through surveys and interviews on the concept of ‘localism’ as related to our studies on the artisan economy in Portland. The second is something of a methodology paper focusing on community-embedded research.
- Later this year, we are working with colleagues around North America to study maker-related entrepreneurialism and the related ‘maker-enabling’ ecosystems in Portland, Chicago, and New York City. It will be a behemoth undertaking, but we are very excited about our roles in the project.
We are constantly forging new relationships with those that are steering the maker movement/artisan economy ship. That said, we might come out of 2015 with 10 more research agendas; I would not be surprised if we do! We love meeting new people and starting new conversations, so anyone with questions please feel free to contact us.
This past Friday, Dr. Heying and I presented the results of our survey of Portland Made Collective members at the “State of the Collective” event held at the ADX Portland makerspace in East Portland. Notably, the event took place on National Manufacturing Day (October 3rd), and celebrated the making and artisan manufacturing community here in Portland. Presentations at the event were also made by Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Multnomah County Commissioner Jules Bailey, and free beer (!) was provided by Burnside Brewing.
The research we presented was from a survey that AEI sent out to Portland Made Collective members back in May. We had great participation from the collective’s members, and so we were excited to present our results. The slides from our presentation can be accessed here, and the full report accessed here. Those interested may also look at the Portland Mercury’s article on our presentation. Please contact us with any questions or for further information.
The Museum of Contemporary Craft (MCC) in Portland currently has an exhibit called Fashioning Cascadia: The Social Life of the Garment. This exhibit, according to the website, aims to understand “all aspects of the design and production [of apparel], as well as those forging new production models based on locally-sourced and produced supply chains.” This is more or less what we have been calling an ecology, although we are interested in the artisan lineage through and between industries. But it’s the exhibit’s second objective that serves as the basis for this post: the exhibit hopes to explore the “social meaning that becomes embedded in garments.” Well, so do we.
Garments are, of course, the material object of the artisan’s craftwork – the actual tangible work that fashion artisans produce. In general, theorizing about artisanal work must include a space for these objects. Based on our research to this point, we would be shallow to claim that artisans and makers produce objects solely in order to exchange them for money or wealth. We believe that during the creative process, the density of meaning transferred from artisans to their product is rather high.
Lately we have been thinking about how the artisans within the maker movement become (and stay) connected. The movement manages to encompass everyone from tech-oriented hackers and engineers to crafty jewelry makers and clothing designers to artisan food cart chefs to creative branding agencies to socially entrepreneurial placemaking nonprofits. Jeremiah Owyang, a Silicon Valley and San Francisco-based maker movement researcher, has called the maker/artisan connective tissue the “collaborative economy.” We prefer to think in terms of an ecology (an assemblage, if you will).
Given the fact that there are a thousand apartment buildings being built in this area, I assumed that the new building nearing completion in my neighborhood was an apartment building. But as it turns out, the building – called The New York – is not apartments, but instead a multistory industrial building targeting “small-time manufacturers or tinkerers, and the creative office users who don’t mind working next door to them” as its tenants.
The goal, for The New York’s developers, is to confront the changing nature of manufacturing in artisan-rich places like Portland: heavy industry and large-scale mass production is no longer the dominant model of manufacturing. In other cities that have concentrated artisan activity, we see the same approach – places like the Russell Industrial Center in Detroit or 630 Flushing in Brooklyn. In Portland, there are numerous examples of old buildings that have been rehabbed to fit new uses (Jane Jacobs would be proud).
What makes this building different is that it is new from the ground up: this is the first example, that I am aware of, of a building built specifically for the artisan economy.
In other news (sorry for the cliché), Dr. Heying was recently interviewed by Ali Velshi on Al-Jazeera America. The interview is in Al-Jazeera’s archives, although the archives only catalogue the show (and therefore the interview) in one-minute segments. But the whole segment is viewable, even if you do have to click through 8 or 9 segments to watch the whole thing. Watch the interview here or watch the whole segment on the Artisan Economy from the beginning here.
It seems obvious to suggest that there is an architecture to Portland’s artisan/maker scene. But this is no normal architecture; it is an architecture that contains other architectures, all of which are constantly free to become some other shape or form, always and never finished. People come and go in the community of makers, enterprises flit in and out of existence, and styles/trends constantly are created, destroyed, reshaped, and recycled. Rapid changes in technology in turn change embedded modes of communication, coordination, and commerce in the making ecology. Artisans and makers live amongst a diverse and ephemeral architecture marked by possibility (rather than routine) and becoming (rather than being).
The idea of assemblage, which comes from the theoretical work of Deleuze and Guattari, helps us to think about how Portland’s makers’ architecture might function. Put simply, assemblages are a theoretical conception for imagining the ways in which linkages are formed within and between individuals and how they develop into social groups. Importantly, assemblages take into account the intensive environment from which each individual emerges. This is where the notion of becoming is most relevant: the closer an artisan works with her craft, the more she becomes connected to and enmeshed in the ecology that supports it. She carves out new linkages through this ecology when she seeks inspirations for design, machines and tools for crafting, collections of people to consume and support it, and so on.
I just returned from a long weekend in Brooklyn. My visit inspired me to comment on the tensions between creativity and neighborhood change, and what those tensions mean for our investigation of localism. Gentrification is a word that has been on many New Yorkers’ minds (and Instagram feeds) lately, and after considering my three visits to the borough over the past decade and a half, I can see why: each time it’s looked radically different from the previous visit. My recent visit made me think of similar transformations in Portland, where 20 years ago the now luxurious and (arguably) hip Pearl District (then called the Northwest Industrial Triangle) was mostly comprised of abandoned and decaying industrial buildings with river views of the Portland Harbor Superfund site.
Williamsburg, a neighborhood in northwestern Brooklyn, is perhaps the epicenter of Brooklyn’s “creative crescent” transformation. A few decades ago, an apartment in Williamsburg rented for about 30 cents per square foot. Today, a studio in Williamsburg costs over $2800/month; assuming 700sq ft, that’s $4 per square foot. Rents in many Brooklyn neighborhoods – Williamsburg, Greenpoint, DUMBO, and even Bushwick – have now exceeded those of Manhattan, and people are reportedly moving back into Manhattan in search of lower rents. This trend led one writer to ask: “So, are we done here? Is it all over?”
We have addressed the problems of definitions in blog posts past; while we are currently accumulating data that will hopefully help us define aspects of the makers movement, we have been thinking about how makers and making fits into the social and economic landscapes of cities. Making, as Chris Anderson somewhat famously put it may indeed (albeit arguably) be “democratizing the means of production.” To be sure, there are some uplifting stories about increased access to manufacturing equipment and artisan tools, particularly through makerspaces and FabLabs such as ADX Portland and TechShop.
In a recent post, we discussed the research challenges of defining our subjects of interest. In seeking the answer, we have experienced a variety of related definitional challenges. When thinking about the relation of makers to their local economies, we were presented with the challenges of thinking about what “local” means. How do we bound our notion of local?
As we have been preparing our new research objectives, we have been immediately confronted by a handful of research dilemmas. What is an artisan or a maker, exactly, and where do we find them? What limitations do we impose on our research by creating boundaries around the artisans we include? Who gets excluded, and at what cost?