Great to see a such a fundamental first question for our new blog from Genevieve Rudd. So many ways to attempt to describe our practice. Perhaps it’s important? Perhaps it doesn’t matter?
I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the title of our practice - participatory, socially-engaged, collaborative, community arts… ? Is there an actual tangible difference in the work depending on the name, or do each describe the same process?
I personally use ‘community artist’ to describe my job role, because I work in the community and do art. For me, it’s a simple and accessible phrase, even if it is a phrase that is less commonly used.
What do you call yourselves?
Look forward to connecting with others working in the field on this new platform!
Genevieve, @gruddphoto
Hi Genevieve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this enduring question about what we call ourselves. I personally prefer socially engaged artist but that's just me. The company I founded primarily does socially engaged and participatory art - well that's what we call it, depending on circumstances/ demands by funders/ commissioners! My doctoral research is really focused upon radical social practice and activism - anti-institutional and commons-based ways of engaging issues around social justice.
A mixed bag. Depends on which hat I wear...
Nonetheless, I think it doesn't matter too much. What matters is how we define our broad practice - what we do and why - that matters right now...
Anyone else got any thoughts? :-)
Hi both, great to share conversation about this. I haven't settled on a term which I feel comfortable with entirely. I change how I describe my depending on the project I'm doing, the context for the project and also who I'm talking to - which I think is ok. This sounds like what you do too Stephen, Most important I think is communicating clearly so people understand your intention at that point.
ReplyDeletePower and ethics are always key for me.
I recently read a great article by Lucy Lippard - ‘Further Afield’ - (from ‘Art and Anthropology: Contemporary Ethnographic Practice’ in which she comments
“The biggest question for both artists and anthropologists should be, are you wanted here? By whom?”
This is something I'm thinking about a lot at the moment, especially in relation to a current project I'm doing in a market in Bradford (more here http://wuratoastlermarket.wordpress.com)
'Socially engaged' is a term that is used so often, to cover such a wide range of practices, from the instrumentalised to the more radical/antagonistic. I've seen it used in a to describe practices (and artists) working in ways which don't seem very equitable. 'Community arts' also has a whole lot of baggage attached! Having worked for many years on community arts projects in which , I personally would distance myself from that term... love to hear your thoughts and continue and expand the conversation!
oops, a bit of a sentence is missing there.. here is the rest of it
ReplyDelete'Having worked for many years on community arts projects in which the focus was on the physical outcome or artwork and not on the quality of engagement or the value if the process itself, I personally would distance myself from that term..
Thanks for your reply, Jean! I just wrote out a 4 paragraph reply and then there was an error - aagh! I will get back to this once I have my resilience back... off to sob
ReplyDeleteGenevieve