This is the text from my workshop “Caught doing social work?” which was part of Manifesta 12’s M12 Education Club conference in Palermo on 19th October 2018. The workshop was held in the community centre in the ZEN social housing project. The text was used as mini provocations which led to a really interesting discussion about instrumentalism of the arts and artists, gentrification and artwashing.Read More
I took part in Communalities, urbanities and artistic commonalities - a symposium at Birkbeck School of Arts on 5th June 2018. This is a transcript of my talk. I billed it as the meeting of William Blake and Half Man Half Biscuit via a trip to Trumpton. There's a video to accompany the talk which I'll upload soon...Read More
I was invited to participate in the final day of Imagined Biennales which was produced by the University of Southampton at Tate Exchange on 13th May 2018. I wrote SPEAR THISTLE a non-manifesto for an Anti-Biennial. This is the transcript of my piece which I performed as a prose poem at the event.Read More
This is the transcript and presentation with notes from my talk at Panda (The Performing Arts Network) in Manchester on 28th March 2018. The event was a celebration of the network's 15 years working with artists and communities but it was also tinged with sadness as they announced that they were unable to continue to operate due to the toxic arts funding environment and local council cuts. I spoke of two songs with two very different fields and two very different chains.
The first is the song of neoliberal state-sanctioned power and control; of compliance and conformity; of commerce and economics. This is the siren song of austerity and the systematic destruction of our communities, of our lives. This is the song that has sunk so many hopes and dreams.
The second song is that of childhood, of freedom, of creativity, of disobedience, of hope.Read More
This article was first published in print in Sluice Magazine and then on their website in 2017. I've decided to publish it on my website because I hope its content still resonates in 2018. It addresses issues of instrumentalism in the arts, artwashing, living creatively and cultural democracy. As I wrote in 2017, I believe "it is still possible to conceive of art as part of living creatively, as part of everyday life, as local cultural democracy, as artistic autonomy." It's time to talk about how...Read More
This is a transcript of my paper I presented at the Edge | Situated Practice conference at Here East on Saturday 7th October 2017. The conference was organised by the UCL Urban Laboratory and the Folkestone Triennial, with additional support from the Bartlett School of Architecture and Slade School of Fine Art. There's a link to my PowerPoint presentation too. It was a really interesting conference and I think my paper provoked some challenging debate.Read More
This is a guest blog by Martin Daws. Martin is a Spoken Word Poet and Community Artist. Full-time freelance since 1999. Young People's Laureate for Wales 2013-2016. Check out his website and follow him on Twitter.
Martin came up with the idea of paying artists to work with communities instead of "investing" millions of pounds in "capital projects" such as arts centres. We chatted about it back in 2016 a bit and he came up with some figures back then. My take is similar but different to Martin's. I favour a simple system based upon replacing infrastructure projects with 10 year funding for community artists based on a scaled system proportionate to the size of each city, town or village. I recently tweeted this question: "Instead of a £50m art venue, a city could pay 200 artists £25k a year for 10 years to work with communities; do what they want. What do you think?" That's sort of my starting point. Martin has kindly agreed to lay out his first draft in a guest blog to hopefully stimulate more discussion and debate about this brilliantly simple, yet potentially life changing shift in how we think about arts funding and how it is distributed more equitably. I will respond in a blog post soon...Read More
This is a transcript of another Twitter conversation between @rattlecans and the poet Martin Daws. It stemmed from my tweet, which reflected Martin's call for paid artists in place of multi-million pound art centres. I asked: "Instead of a £50m art venue, a city could pay 200 artists £25k a year for 10 years to work with communities; do what they want. What do you think?" This is what happened...Read More
I did a talk at Diffusion 'Revolution' Festival Symposium at Cardiff University today. I've uploaded my presentation with notes here. Click the link below to read it and remember to turn notes on in bottom right hand corner of presentation when it loads... The talk is called Artwashing: From Mining Capital to Harvesting Social Capital.Read More
This is a reblog (with additions) of a post that was originally posted anonymously on LSE Sociology blog. I must explain a few things. I wasn't comfortable being anonymous because, as a fellow activist said, anonymity is the greatest dispossession. So here it is on my own site. I stand by my work but must explain that my issue is not with the ESRC research nor with anyone involved in the forthcoming research project. I am only interested in exploring The Idea - Platform-7 and what I consider to be an example of artwashing. It is also important to note that this work is personal and not connected to anything else I am involved with professionally. I consider this part of my ongoing activist work: an intervention; a performance; research as practice (praxis); art (or perhaps anti-art). It is an act of resistance and a critique. If this is problematic, I'm happy to explain more.Read More
This blog post follows on from yesterday’s critique of Stella Duffy’s call for action towards the creation of a “new culture”. It is a response both to François Matarasso’s thoughtful and challenging critique of my blog post and an attempt to answer the people who asked what my basis was for my critique, what my practice was, what alternative perspectives I might have. I fear this post will prove unsatisfactory to many as I do not claim to offer singular nor even collective solutions that will ever be acceptable to “everyone”. Nevertheless, here goes…Read More
Smelt. Clart. Pitch. Clay. Pit. Hit. Bray. Hob. Hoy. Words overheard on map-less meanders over still-chartered grouse moors. Stories told and retold by blazing public house firesides. Cautionary tales.
This is the abstract for my forthcoming paper presentation at the Royal Geographical Society 2016 International Conference in London on 2nd September. The session is explores "The Nexus of Art and Geography: practice as research", is part of the Participatory Geographies Research Group activities and is convened by Cara Courage (University of Brighton, UK) and Anita McKeown (Independent Researcher).Read More
Ken Saro-Wiwa Memorial Bus, large format digital print, part of Doing Nothing is Not an Option, Michael McMillan and Platform London, Peckham Platform, 2015
I was, like Anthony Schrag (and others I know), infuriated by the recent ArtWorks Conversation at BALTIC 39. Anthony has written a little about the pairing of Ilana Mitchell (Wunderbar and other things) and Darren O'Donnell (Mammalian Diving Reflex) today in a piece entitled The Value Rant, but his rant was not at them and not (directly) at ArtWorks or their 'critical conversations'. Anthony was, like me, incredibly annoyed by the idea that socially engaged or participatory art (it would seem you can call it what you will nowadays - but that's a topic for another post) could and/ or should be 'scaled-up' and professionalised. But that wasn't what really angered him. It was the incessant droning of an 'excited' hipster political student that set free a passel of possums from their cage. (To be clear the excited hipster didn't sound or appear particularly excited with anything other than his own drawn-out ideas and self-aggrandisement.)
The thing is that I had intended to blog about the event the very next day as I was so angry. But (oddly for me, perhaps) I decided against it and put the event down to another one of 'those ArtWorks things' - a now very familiar feeling. Having read Anthony's humorous-yet-deadly-incisive 'rant', I felt compelled to respond to several issues and personal opinions he raised. They're incredibly important and at the heart of much of the ongoing debate (bickering?) that has dogged our field of practice for years. There are, I believe, many areas upon which Anthony and I (broadly) agree but there are several places where our views diverge. For me this is a good thing. We both enjoy the oscillating thrills and pulsating challenges that only tension can invoke (although perhaps Anthony may not entirely agree...) I will not discuss the event other than to say that I struggled to get beyond Ilana's brilliantly idiosyncratic thinking and making, and the instrumentalism inherent within Darren's work.
So what do I think Anthony and agree on? We both are clearly very sceptical at the very least to institutionalisation, professionalism agendas, instrumentalism, 'scaling-up', best practice, toolkits - basically anything homogenous - because we believe our practice is and must always be relational, dynamic, and respect the autonomies of artists and people taking part alike. As Anthony says, 'the very things that are unreproducible, un-scale-up-able, un-repeatable.' But where he sees attempts to totally administer socially engaged art as the product of wayward best intentions, I see authoritarian technocratic control and oppression. Where he finds positivity in at least some aspects of the ArtWorks project, I am deeply suspicious of their intentionality.
I found the 'man-bunned politics student' to be very boring and rather naïve yet almost ludic at times. He made me grimace, smile, laugh. Where he unleashed Anthony's 'angry possums' from his mind, he filled mine with cartoon hind legs and badly drawn donkeys. He genuinely believed that the examples of practice he had witnessed were 'new'. He did not know about socially engaged or participatory practice and that's fine. Tedious for those of us who've spent a long time practicing and studying the 'expanded field'; interesting and exciting to him. But Anthony is entirely right that the practice is 'not new', doesn't (mustn't). 'be professionalised' and is certainly not 'a new saviour of art.' For me, the politico-hipster wasn't 'ill-informed' or ignorant, he was rather unaware of the history of our practice. There are many people like him within the Art World as well as outside it. That's fine. Marginal practices are often (wrongly) believed to be 'new' when first encountered whether through touristic exploration or strategic colonialism. I'd go as far as to say that what matters most to us - histories, theories and practical nuances - matters least to interested attendees of critical conversations, participants, people who don't like 'art', or other people from within the Art World.
Of course, Anthony wasn't really rattled by our moustachioed interloper. He was (is) angered by the opposing forces of instrumentalising institutionalism on the one hand; activism and political agendas on the other. But I take issue he seems to suggest that those with activist and/ or political agendas/ ideologies do not know enough about the field's history or theoretical underpinnings. This is simply not true in every case. In opposing these oppositions, Anthony places himself in the middle alongside some other 'lovely, passionate people' who are, like everyone, flawed and being crushed by institutionalism and those who do not understand (although I suspect the crushing comes mainly from one direction only).
I share Anthony's passion that socially engaged practice is primarily about 'what happens between and with other people' and, of course, people want to influence others but there are many forms this may take from authoritarian control to utopian imaginings and liberation. Anthony is also right about the need for practitioners within the field to 'come together' much more than we tend to do at present. However, I am very sceptical about developing a 'continuum of practice'. I believe that the field must be broad and must include tension: internal oppositions; never consensus. Indeed, Anthony is hesitant about formal definitions within the field. Interestingly, he also thinks that we must understand which direction 'we might be heading in' as well as who our potential allies are and those 'who might not know what they are talking about'. In response, I'd suggest: we can have multiple directions; and that our allies (theoretical and practical) might include many activists as well as others from other fields and other cultures - activists who do not seek to control others but who do, like all of us, have beliefs, ideologies, political affiliations, and most importantly biases that make it impossible for anyone (artist or otherwise) to divorce themselves from this 'baggage'. Sometimes, however, the baggage can be good. There is no such thing as values-free art. We cannot dismiss, as Anthony does in a comment to my reply to his blog post, any work that may be, or be suspected of being, political or activist or state instrumentalist for that matter of being 'not art' - of being a form of 'social work'. That's not to say that much of what's being peddled as participatory or (now) socially engaged art isn't deeply instrumental, controlling and stigmatising at worst and 'social work' at best.
I think that there's a fine line between Anthony's position on socially engaged practice and my own. For Anthony good socially engaged practice must enable 'shifts in thinking' by 'unravelling' the world without trying to change people's minds; I agree but would add that we can work with people to create open spaces where people can challenge their understanding of themselves and the world through creative practices (whether artist-led or otherwise) and that this process might help some people to better understand their place in the world as it is today as well as to begin to envisage other ways, new potentialities that they have within their power to struggle to make real. A long but perhaps necessary addendum. This is political and revolutionary. It does not foreclose on possibilities or individualities. It is not pluralistic democracy. It has no fixed agenda any more so than the many excellent examples of socially engaged art's heritage that Anthony carefully lists in his post - examples that are (at least where named or labelled) all deeply political and often activist in nature.
Perhaps Anthony and I can agree that socially engaged practice must be oppositional (and agonistic?) in ways both he describes in his blog and I attempt to do here. Perhaps opposition is one of the directions for our field of practice. Perhaps activism is another. Sophie Hope (chair) certainly seemed to indicate her absolute frustration that we (the field) don't say NO - don't oppose the status quo - when she admirably summed up the event's proceedings...
Dotto, Courtesy of The Black-E.
I asked the two questions in my title as an immediate response to a panel entitled ‘What kind of organisation do we need to develop to work with communities…?’ The problem seemed obvious; becoming increasingly apparent as the Community Arts? Learning from the Legacy of Artists’ Social Initiatives conference (part of Liverpool Biennial’s programming) progressed. Those ‘learning’ from artists should be organisations – who presumably had recently learned or were still learning the importance of working with people outside of our narrow arts world. This is, for me, a deeply problematic and unsettling narrative. Questions of appropriation sprang to mind.
Reflecting back, it was clear from the offset when (co-convenor) Sally Tallant said she preferred to ‘challenge institutions from the inside’ – a now rather hackneyed phrase within the arts. Fellow co-convenor Andrea Phillips presented a much more oppositional stance. She quickly highlighted the inherent ‘contradictions’ linked to the ‘institutionalisation of participation and engagement’ which could lead to the ‘banalisation of community’. She pointed to Community Arts’ deeply ‘political investment’ which had been dampened within a ‘misrecognition of intent’ and the Blairite shift from notions of ‘exclusion to inclusion’.
The founders of The Black-E and conference hosts, Bill and Wendy Harpe, presented a brief overview of their incredible archive of almost 50 years of community arts interventions and participatory exhibitions. Their commitment and passion was infectious. ‘Participation used to have one meaning – now we have 101’, said Bill. He later revealed that The Black-E were facing Arts Council cuts of 35% - the highest level of any NPO organisation in Liverpool. He was, as always, upbeat in his determination to keep going. For me, cuts to The Black-E with its long history of working as part of communities, represents an insidious and conscious decision by Arts Council England to replace great community art by artists and smaller organisations with glass bastions such as Home and The Factory (and many others around the country).
Frances Rifkin followed a fast-paced Jason Bowman with a more pointedly political reflection upon the field of practice. ‘We saw our work as political, transformative – not as do-gooders,’ she explained. She regretted the point in time when ‘the exclusive notion of excellence began to creep in’. She talked about battles, the importance of trade unionism and marginalisation. Issues I feel are all implicated within the creeping professionalisation and institutionalisation of our field. ‘The use of volunteers is one way of not funding artists,’ she added before going on to say that it was ‘disgraceful there were no opportunities for young artists’ today. Frances revealed she was optimistic about a shift within the arts because, and I echo her thoughts, big arts organisations and funders such as Arts Council England are vulnerable after suffering from round after round of austerity.
Later Sophie Hope declared that Community Art could be seen as a form of ‘oppositional practice’ that rejected the marketisation and professionalisation endemic within the field today. Later still, Nato Thompson whistled through several of Creative Time’s ‘commissions’. His narrative was interesting. ‘We do public art,’ he said. He was immediately followed by Anna Colin of Open School East. She described the school as collective and self-organising with ‘a structure that’s quite light – self-reflexive and self-critical’. Yet, I was left wondering about the intentions of the founders: The Barbican Centre and CREATE London…
There was a perceivable heightening of tensions when Tate’s Director of Learning, Anna Cutler, began by asking the audience, ‘Who would define your practice as educational or learning?’ Not many hands went up. She seemed ruffled. ‘I would like to see things changed,’ she said rather unconvincingly. She attempted and failed to describe ‘socially engaged practice’ as a ‘sliding scale’ in which she said she ‘liked to think I’m in the middle’. Safe and sound! Except, for me, Tate do not do socially engaged art – they do outreach and education programmes and participation. Oh, and let’s not forget their dodgy sponsors!! (#BPMustGo!) ‘As long as you’re transparent with participants, its ok,’ and, ‘It’s all about changing the processes, otherwise you’re just moaning from the outside,’ and ‘We’re an institution… change takes a long time,’ she added. Tensions rose further. Then, after several more references to change from Anna, I asked my question. The room ignited.
The rest of the day was notable for Sonia Boyce’s beautifully moving work, for some sort of democratic intervention that demanded more time for open comments (which were a little disjointed but really welcome) and a great summing up by Andrea Phillips. I listened intently to the various perspectives on Granby Four Streets but still felt somehow uncomfortable with the project and its potential to become an unwitting (perhaps even knowing) agent for gentrification. I remembered Andrea Phillips conclusion to Art and Housing: The Private Connection (2012):
The artist is a self-builder. The rich man is a self-builder. The yachts at Venice, with their open invitations for cocktails to socially engaged artists, facilitate the perfect and paradoxical nexus of new “social” housing. The poor can only stand and stare.
My lasting memories of this exceptionally interesting and revealing conference revolve around the notion of oppositions. Community Arts was an oppositional movement. Socially engaged art is based on the premise of anti-institutionalism, amongst other things. Institutions seem to feel that they can, given enough time and, undoubtedly lots of money, change to take on the role of community artist. This move will come at the expense of the local, independent, autonomous interventions of many individual artists, collectives and smaller artist-led organisations working within communities. Community Arts is about trust and togetherness. Are large arts organisations really best placed to replace people (artists) who are driven to work in this way? Can they?
We must indeed learn from the legacy of Community Arts and STORM THE CITADELS as Owen Kelly suggested back in 1984!
I delivered this talk about my research to the Northumbria - Sunderland AHRC Centre for Doctoral Training Student Conference on the 1st July 2015 at The BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art. It’s about negating a negation – negative dialectics. It’s also about some of the potentialities that socially engaged art may be able to explore as part of broader movements for social justice and emancipation from the shackles of our present neoliberal regime.
For me, our current technocratic and bureaucratic state is, at every level, unfair, unjust, unequal – not just maintaining status quos but tightening their strange-holds upon our ways of living. The field of arts and culture is no exception. It’s mutation (under the hands of politicians, policy-makers, funders, arts and cultural institutions, financial and business backers, etc.) into The Creative Industries is deeply troubling. Horkheimer and Adorno saw this coming. Totally administered arts. Totally administered society. My work is optimistic and hopeful. The outcomes are always unknown. But it is essential that I also explore, through negative dialectics, the acts of negation that have, to a large extent, imposed outside rules and policies upon artists, people, communities in the name of progress, economics, austerity, excellence, or whatever.
Please feel free to either take a look at my presentation online here or by clicking the image below (remember to click the ‘NOTES’ button in the bottom right corner of the PowerPoint Online window); or read a transcript of my talk below.
The images in the presentation are from my five longitudinal studies as well as some of my own. They are meant to sometimes jar with the text; sometimes complement. You decide.
SOCIALLY ENGAGED ART – MARGINAL PRACTICES AND CRITICAL UTOPIAS
Hello. I’m Stephen Pritchard. This is my second year of research-based doctoral study. I am also a socially engaged arts practitioner and a curator. Five months into a six month period of paternity leave.
[I must not research.]
So, rather than present what you’ve (possibly) already heard me say before, I thought I’d try a more autoethnographic, prosaic form.
Snippets. Thread ends. Scraps of thoughts. Slices of other writing. Holes. Never wholes. Titbits of other talks. Scrambled. Jumbled. Sometimes lucid. Things from around the edges.
5 MONTHS AND NO RESEARCH. [REPEAT: I MUST NOT RESEARCH.]
THINKS: Start a little formally (to begin with…)
RESEARCH QUESTION: Can participatory art support sustainable social change? THIS WILL CHANGE.
The directions of research will not.
HERBERT MARCUSE: “How can art speak the language of a radically different experience, how can it represent the qualitative difference? How can art invoke images and needs of liberation which reach into the depth dimension of human existence, how can it articulate the experience not only of a particular class, but all of the oppressed?”
HYPOTHESIS: Socially engaged arts practice may be capable, when realised through radical, performative and agonistic forms of counter-hegemonic activism and/ or greater personal and social awareness, of supporting a paradigm-shift towards a world where neoliberalism is replaced by a different type of democracy that embraces social justice, encourages grassroots participation and inspires a spirit of self-directed mutual learning.
CHANGE IT! Too long. Wordy. Idealistic? NO. Utopian? Marginal practices? YES.
MOYLAN: “This alliance of margins without a center anticipates in both the personal and political dimensions the new values and the new society.”
THEORY: Deeply complex. Interdisciplinary.
Can theories of literary criticism, object relations, aesthetics, Critical Theory, political, contemporary visual culture, more, shed new light on the practice of socially engaged art? I think so.
Critical Utopias offer infinite potentialities.
METHODOLOGY: Critical theory. Dialectics. Autoethnographic – autobiography and ethnography – process AND product. Discourse analysis. Longitudinal studies. Short intensive discussions. Fragments of conversation. Gather artefacts, mementos, memories along the way.
Mountains of field notes.
Research subjects become in some ways objects: The Stove, Dumfries; Alex White-Mazzarella, global; Encounters, Totnes; Ovalhouse, London; Platform London.
Different trajectories. Similar practices AND uniquely different. All struggling to make art in an increasingly economics-driven field. Committed to being part of this research, we can all learn from each other.
PRESENTATIONS: ArtWorks conference at BALTIC, Warwick University, The Stove, and Arts Council England in London, more.
I’m lecturing at London Met and (hopefully) other universities in the autumn. I tweet. Blog.
We’re all (self) propagandists nowadays.
FIRST PAPER: A View is Always Worth It: Social Practice in Rural North East England, will be published by Taylor Francis in the Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy in August.
TOM MOYLAN: “Critical utopian discourse becomes a seditious expression of social change and popular sovereignty carried out on in a permanently open process of envisioning what is not yet.”
The art world is an incredibly staid, unequal place. And art’s potentialities – like all things in life – always lie around its margins – in spaces (perhaps not yet created) where tension is always a welcome and frequent (re) visitor.
HERBERT MARCUSE: “The transcendence of immediate reality shatters the reified objectivity of established social relations and opens a new dimension of experience: rebirth of the rebellious subjectivity.”
ART AND INEQUALITY
Can art ever be truly equal? (Can anything?) Or, is art always about inequity; unfairness; elitism?
As a Critical Theorist, capitalism is always inherently unequal; insidiously alienating.
Art as commodity. Artist as a profession - division of labour. These sorts of things threaten creativity. Replacing society with individualism; with competition for resources THEY say are in short supply.
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE, they say.
I say THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES! There are many alternatives. Tiny little alternatives. OUR alternatives. Different. NOT THEIR’S.
WE LIVE IN ONE OF THE WORLD MOST UNEQUAL COUNTRIES. Neoliberalism encourages inequality. Divide and rule. We are all increasingly, often unknowingly complicit…
Because, after all…
We’re all consumers nowadays.
Ours is a material world.
Capital is everything.
Economic value. Social value. Cultural value. Social Return on Investment. Impact. Innovation. Evaluation. Matrices. Big data. Wellbeing. Happiness. Resilience. Adaptive resilience. Sustainability. Philanthropy. Leadership. Quality. Great art. Excellence. Money. Money. Money! More and more and more…
… Oh, and CUTS!
Austerity is such a terrible word.
But, wait a minute… The Art World’s such a lovely place, isn’t it? Great Art and Culture For Everyone v2.0 anyone? The pink book? State produced bible to salve all society’s ills. Bring us all together? Art for all?
Not if THOSE IN THE KNOW have their way.
Can arts and culture think beyond economics and (nicely) enforced state policy? Beyond spurious ecosystem models. Beyond ‘making the right investments’?
SU BRADEN: “What is financed… is still seen by THEM as a means by which more people will be encouraged to enjoy and appreciate the arts on which the majority of money is already spent.”
She was talking about community art. Who get’s to decide. Limited participation.
So let’s put PARTICIPATION ON TRIAL…
Everyone’s a ‘participant’ nowadays. Aren’t THEY?
Or, following the Warwick Commission’s report on The Future of Cultural Value and its magic number – 8% – should I say WE – members of the cultural class?
Participation in the arts lacks real meaning.
Wander into a gallery, watch a play, help set up a festival, dig up a beach looking for fool’s gold, clog dance on cross-shaped shipping containers in the name of Christ, write memoirs in a timber sanctuary then watch it burn (physically and/or digitally), oh, and praise be the lanterns!
Then there’s socially engaged art, ecologically engaged art, activist art – marginal – issue-based – commonly working for social justice.
So why do I find the ‘participation in the arts’ agendas – and participatory arts in particular – so troubling, so divisive?
I suggest participation lacks intent.
For many policy makers, commissioners, arts organisations, artists, and so on, the more fun the activity, the less socially or politically engaged, the better.
PARTICIPATION BY NUMBERS. Count ‘them’. Lots of ‘disadvantaged’ people – great! Segregate them. Categorise. NEETS, ethnic minorities, older people, physically impaired, mentally ill, on and on and on. Measure them. See – they have improved! Thank The State for sending us an artist (backed by hidden ranks of arts administrators, of course). Look – all ‘their’ woes are gone. Take happy pictures for websites and Facebook and glossy publications. Pair them with a narrative penned for a pretty penny by the consultant or academic-led elite. Add graphs, tables, carefully edited anecdotes from ‘real people’ who loved taking part. Pie charts. Sprinkle spurious references to a too-oft-cited weakly defined canon. Make a film. Cost benefit analysis. Bravo! Keeps the funders happy. Useful evidence for future projects. Splendid.
Or is it? The trouble is participation in the arts – participatory arts – are products of insidious instrumentalism. State and funder-led initiatives hoping to wash away ‘their’ troubles, ‘their’ sins with a bit of taking part in some art. Sanitised, professionalised, risk-assessed to within an inch of existence. Best practice. Toolkits. Reports. Evaluations. Metrics. Big data. Fodder for never ending quasi-academic discussions about participation at which most participants are… well… people like us.
STATUS QUO. Hidden behind shallow dialogic frameworks. Another neoliberal veneer. Allowing dominant power structures to be reproduced and maintained.
Dialogic exercises and even ‘radical listening’ embed as cornerstones in participatory arts’ mission of improving practice and quality – ‘professionalising’ artists.
Anyone for CPD? Join with us. Sing ‘The Dialogic Song’. MISSIONARY ZEAL. Preach to the converted. Spread ‘our’ message. PARTICIPATE NOW! (Not ‘us’, them. New people.)
CONVERT TO ARTS PARTICIPATION NOW! (It’s something to do. Might get you a job. Might improve your wellbeing. Might improve the economy. Might even be FUNPALACES fun!)
Keeps the funders happy anyway.
IMPOSE BEST PRACTICE NOW.
Funders love it. Dovetail into burgeoning business plans.
FILE UNDER OUTREACH OR EDUCATION.
Organisations employ artists nowadays, don’t they?
They allow ‘participation’ into their programming – sometimes.
Voiceless artists should be grateful for meagre scraps as payment for their labour.
Hurrah! Complicit in the division of their labour, the institutions cheer as they further alienate artists from art!
BBC GET CREATIVE!
New Labour shuffled in neoliberal governance. Public money bought new Creative Industries citadels replete with artist and audience and participant proof defences.
Yet the price for artistic excellence is high; the pact always Faustian.
PARTICIPATION FOR ALL. Deeply divisive. Soft neoliberal governance. MERCENARIES.
Artists always bottom of the pile. Squashed silent by the tentacles of instrumentalism. With few rights and little money, who can blame artists for taking the bait?
MOBILISE. Artists and communities can mobilise for social justice. Self-organise. Art can counter the instrumentalism of state and institutions. A different, freer form of participation. Socially engaged art. Activism.
Academics and agents of the state tend to steer clear. No wonder. Social practice opposes neoliberalism in all its guises. We want change. WE ARE NOT GUILTY!
So, I suggest that participation in the arts and the trivialising forms of participatory arts practice that feed like parasites from fillets of newly institutionalised participatory arts programming are guilty of a terrible crime:
PARTICIPATING IN THE NEOLIBERAL PROJECT OF INDIVIDUALISM. THEIR ILLUSORY RAINBOW CLOAK OF ARTS AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES SHOULD NOT FOOL YOU. LOOK CAREFULLY. IT IS ANOTHER CRUDE APPROPRIATION OF THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES. A DEMOCRATIC SWINDLE.
HORKHEIMER AND ADORNO: “All reification is a forgetting.”
WHAT IS SOCIAL PRACTICE?
Little creative acts of not knowing.
Political, sometimes radically activist, acts.
Potential spaces. Safe places where dangerous new realities might grow. Grassroots. Social justice. Collective. Autonomous. Communal.
Deeply suspicious of instrumentalism and state. Outside of institutions. Around and across margins.
A practice in which art as concept is everywhere.
Unspoken, like innumerable tiny little secrets shared in moments outside the false strictures of coordinated civic time.
Messes of thread.