Participatory projects in culture; Art or Social Work?
[lang_en]
Christoph Apprilla, one of the speakers at the seminar titled Séminaire Oracle 2013th, Participatory art projects: European Dynamics?, which we attended in late April in Marseilles, presented his thesis on the transformation of the relationship between culture and the general public.
Since the mid-1990’s, – consideres Apprill – the relationship between artists, cultural operators and the wider public has been transformed. One of the deep changes is the way in which cultural policies and artistic projects are justified. With a growth in the importance given to the cultural industries within cultural policy, where the emphasis is placed on the links between the economy and cultural activity, the social or human aspect of projects can be pushed to one side.
Yet, in some areas, certain artists and cultural operators have inspired people involved in making cultural policy. Apprill particularly referred to the interest shown by policy makers in the development of alternative venues where participative artistic projects and collaborative creative processes can take place. Other changes include a shift from: a cultural offer to the proposition of cultural collaborations, from consumption to participation, from alternative venues to “alternative ways of creating”.
Across Europe much of recent discussion concerning these transformations gravitates around the idea of how the public is, or is not, involved. Often these different public’s are pictured not only as being far from artistic activity, but also from humanity. In this context, the role of artist would seem to be to help with such issues facing Western society as: urban segregation, breakdown of social ties, urban decline, increases in new forms of technologies and social media… The artist then finds her or himself sent out to ‘to the front-line’, with just a box of participatory tools with which to confront these issues,along with others trying to draw the attention of the public.
How do artists and cultural operators position themselves with regards to internal challenges (such as the way in which the cultural economy works) and external challenges (such as the demand to show impacts of cultural policies in terms of employment or wider social issues)? Are these issues the same across Europe? How does the question of participation relate to the question of artistic creation and creativity?- these are some of the issues in his presentation, Mr. Apprill left open.
At the seminar we could also hear somewhat cynical views on the topic, from Professor Jean Shneider from Arles University with whom we talked after his lecture.
You were quite cynical about the subject that was discussed . You put the artists and their expertise in the first place…
There are 2 things – if the process is to end up with a form, than of course the artist is the expert of that form, that’s the definition of his job, to be an artist is also a job. I may be cynical, but I hope not in a negative sense. I just want to show the reality behind this from the modest experience I have, because this will really help these projects to be better supported. Thus, I’m not cynical because I’m negative about these projects. I consider them extremely valuable, but in order to show their uniqueness it must be clear what is their worth, one must know how they work , what they are encompassing, what are the risks… so that their difference has to be truly visible.
In the first part of your presentation you have defined this expertise and the commitment of artists to create something…
I think there are two different things that I’m trying to keep in consideration. One is that through this kind of projects you agree to share time with other people. So, you commit to make the process visible. The problem with a romantic artist, and we still live with that, is the idea that you don’t know how the work happens and eventually the ideal work is when you have a strike of light and the painting comes out. For me it is not so … I believe that art is work, like any other job – you spend time, you try…So, in participatory projects you accept to make this visible and shared by other people. And that, I think, is the first really important thing.
The second thing is the expertise. Obviously artists, or at least some of them, have a problem with that word. Expertise is not arrogance, it’s just the competence you acquire. Because when you do something for a long time you know the tricks, you know how to do it best, and you know what effects it is going to have. This has two roles:
The first is that that’s where you gain your legitimacy in relation to the community. You don’t come, do not walk around and sit down and say „I’m a drug dealer.“ or „I’m a newspaper reporter“… No, you say: „I’m an artist.“ And, of course, it means that a group of people is going to produce something that has a specific existence, which is a work of art. You are not a process. So, that’s the first important thing about the competence, or expertise.
Secondly, it is that some art is supposed to be a form at some point. Even it you drop it – if the form is there, than you are the expert of that form.
Again, this is not a judgment value about the quality of the form as such, or, it’ does not deny that other people can produce forms, the whole history is made up of creative people that have capacity to make meaningful forms. It’s simply that in terms of when something has to be done you know how to do it best, and it is than your job.
In the second part you mentioned a number of important issues such as ownership, funding, artistic quality…
First, the funding issue is important because it’s simply a necessity ‑who is going to support this type of project, and by what criteria? Since funding is not easy money, you will have to report on its use etc., etc. I think it is worth seriously thinking about that, rather than saying „Ooh, my project is so good but it’s not supported!“ No! You have to say „OK, that’s my product, let’s fight for that.“
Another question is ownership, because indeed you have to decide (or do not have a definite decision, because it changes over time) who is the owner of the project? Is it who owns the work at the end –be it a theater show, or music, painting, an exhibition or whatever. So-who is the owner of that work? Is it those who produced it ? Is it the artists? Is it those who paid for it? These are all legitimate questions. Or – what is the real thing –is it the process? Than who owns the process? ‑all those that were committed into it? (-the group of people that came to the meetings, who produced things at your request etc… ) Or are the owners the funders, as they decide whether the project can be done or not? (so they can develop a sense of ownership, and it’s also important that they feel that they have not only subsidized art but that they also own something beyond that). Is it the community that has received you, that accepted you, that allowed you to do it? It’s not just all those involved but the whole content around it. So, I think in these kind of projects the issue of ownership is quite open, quite challenging and probably subject to negotiation. Some projects have failed because obviously the issue of ownership was not discussed. It was implicitly negotiated, and only when the tension came than it opened …
What do you think about the quality, was there enough attention on it in this participatory projects?
I cannot say anything about the quality of one versus another project, because we would need to talk about specific projects. What is really important here is that there’s no compromise with the artistic quality, and I think this is really essential. Because if there is compromise about that, than the artist become just a social worker. You deprived community – you give them the right to make pictures but you use the rights as the artist to show these pictures somewhere. To me, this is not interesting, it again maintains division.
To comment on prof. Schneider’s views, we asked one of the attending founding directors of Marcel Hichter Foundation – Jean Pierre Deru. Do you have a comment on the thesis that the experts should be experts, and others should do their job as social workers, teachers, whatever…
I absolutely don’t believe in experts (especially those self-proclaimed experts). Of course there are people with experience, people with insight, people who have great desire to create, and that’s valuable, we must bank on that, but I think the expertise is everywhere. So, for instance, even in the population in difficult areas people have some capacities, they have some intelligence. The point is ‑to have a participatory system means that we must recognize the people as citizens. Citizens who are capable, who have a word to say in the management of the city, in the area of inter-cultural logic, and that’s the most important. Then, of course, some artists, some managers, some people from the culture can help them to grow, help them to do common things, to unleash their creativity. But I don’t believe that there is a kind of cast of experts on one side and on the other side all those poor people with no ideas, no meaning. I see there are a lot of things in the people that really should be put into action, and there we can help.
Could you make some conclusions about the subject of this conference on participatory projects?
I don’t believe in conclusions, either, because there’s nothing to conclude, it’s an ongoing process. What we have learned here, I think, are 2 main elements: ‑one is that we’ve got lots of different examples of people who are trying to do some participatory cultural work (-cultural-social-political work“, so I would call it), and it is interesting to interact between different experiences, so we can learn from each other a lot.
The second thing is that we sometimes need moments such as that one was, where there are also some people who can bring a more conceptual logic, set ideas and what is at stake in a longer time frame, in a kind of visionary idea. That way, people can take a detached view of what they do, to what they should do, or change their minds. So, these are the two main things that I take away from this event.
[/lang_en]
[lang_en]Author: Marino Jurcan[/lang_en]
