Questions in Community Engagement
May 8th, 2008I’m currently in a self-diagnosed professional existential crisis, which is not surprising given the phase of program we’re currently in…sort of like being on a plane in-line to take off after waiting on the tarmac for hours. In the back of my mind, I know that the hands-on work will begin in earnest, but in the meantime, that means I have too much time to think and continue to plan for the next exhibition. A wise man once told me, sometimes, the best thing you can do is sit back and wait, and this is definitely one of those times.So, back to the too much time thinking and the professional existential crisis…I find myself reflecting on the past six months and am realizing that I’m feeling somewhat removed from what originally brought me to this unique position. In a sense, I feel as if I’ve lost the social work side of the community engagement, so in the next few blogs, I plan to address this point by point in hopes that you might have thoughts, advice, and reflections that will ultimately help me find my way back to my core mission.
Point One: Evaluation. Are we making an impact with what we do, and how do we measure that impact? One of the primary reasons for the merging of the applied social sciences and the arts is to further develop and refine the use of evaluation in community programs implemented by cultural institutions. There are a few sources out there that provide a framework for the discussion, one of which being Gifts of the Muse, a report released by the Rand Corporation in 2004 that proposes approaching the discussion about the benefits of the arts from a different perspective. The same tools, methods, and challenges are faced by social service providers, as they seek to justify the relevance and effectiveness of their work. While there are easily quantifiable measures of success, the qualitative effects of programs are more difficult to firmly grasp. Add to that the difficulty of proving causality, bias, and other perils of human subjects-based research, it becomes all too easy to lose yourself in a land of meaningless data collected through ineffective measures. I’m sure this won’t be the last time I blog about this, and the issues of effective evaluation are weighing heavily upon my mind at the moment. Do you have any ideas on what a good measure of impact of the arts might look like? If so, I’d love to hear them. Then we can get down to a discussion about methodology, instrumentation, and implementation.
It seems today art requires an interactive element. Without direct interaction, or community engagement, art becomes nothing more than an idea. The public requires now a full sensory experience that will transcend them past a just a mere visual painting (just a visual experience). Within the framework of spatial interaction, sensory architecture, and community art programs or projects, a individual is allowed the freedom of participation, self discovery, and ultimately creative expression. Interactive/community arts not only builds a foundation for social change and progress, but the “idea through actions method” motivates an participant to also take part in the environment in which they live. Community arts draw attention to the sensory surroundings of an individual. That direct perception allows for communication of their experience to others and with others. In the end, the effects of interactive, community, and sensory arts will have a far greater effect on an individual than just a mere exhibition of paintings in a well designed building. Now if one was to talk with an observer viewing these paintings, or directly engage with them by either allowing another sense, such as touch… smell, or even taste, well then you will have gone well beyond the traditional aesthetics/functionality of contemporary art.
However, as you have mentioned, implementation… that is where things get tricky. Philosophy is easy. Talk is simple. The actions are phenomenal. Of course, thats not to say its not possible, the programs implemented by some cultural or arts organizations have potential blowing through the roof. You can feel the energy in some of these places, its overwhelming sometimes. Its really just about motivation, support, and follow through.
I tend to agree with you on your point about interactivity and would like to ask for clarification on what you mean by interactivity. From your comment, I gather it’s the participation in the creation of art, plus any art that has participation conceptually and physically built into its structure, e.g. aural stimulation in specified spaces. Can that definition of interactivity include simple discussion, or is that too cerebral to be effective for a broader populace?
Judging by today’s standards, really participation in the creation of art is far more complex in comparison to art historical predecessors… or maybe its not, and critics, curators, and philosophers are just now beginning to develop theories on contemporary aesthetics and art. It seems that contemporary art has more to do with the process than ever before.
Take for example two extreme examples: Damien Hirst and Christo and Jeanne-Claude. Damien Hirst, the wealthiest, and highest paid living artist worldwide, has a total of 3 factories, with endless assistants, and employees, fabricators, etc. Yet, his approach to contemporary art is far different than that of Christo, he believes the fabrication process, although important (he does not feel he has to create himself), like an architect that designs a building, he designs an object or objects that collectors, curators, and the art market have come to value through supply and demand (basic trade/market principles). Damien Hirst’s artwork value is contained within the idea, not the final product, nor the process in which it is made (Hirst possesses many of the same characteristics of Thomas Kinkade - in the fact that the original is of no importance, it is the idea, and the creator = whom possesses the talent and creativity, not the product (or artwork). Yet the art market still places value on his creations, regardless of his physical work in the objects. His artworks still sell for millions - sometimes more money than it takes to build a skyscraper. However, he did learn from the best self-promoter there ever was… Andy Warhol (note: whom also had a factory that churned out mass produced artworks…) and Warhol learned from many historical painters, some of which had assistants or apprentices working under their direction.
In contrast, Christo and Jeanne-Claude, believe that their work also is not about the finished product. But instead of stressing the importance of themselves (the creators/the idea generators), they stress importance on others who help them build an idea, a dream, or an artwork. Christo & JC have developed their artwork to function solely on the community effort of others (although those that volunteer for their projects are all paid - out of pocket, the community and individuals are necessary to build their projects. Politicians, construction workers/laborers, city officials and more are all credited in the end. None of the projects would even see the light of day without the help of others in the community in which they plan on implementation. All of their large projects are temporary, yet all of their large projects generate an experience of people coming together to create something for an aesthetic or functional purpose. The projects are valued not in dollars, but in community involvement and engagement - thousands are involved in the preparation, hundreds are involved in the implementation. Then the project is viewed for less than a month by the public, thus generating a full sensory experience, that includes direct social discussion and intellectual debate. And after the temporary period of altered public perception through the implementation of an environmental installation, hundreds work together to physically deconstruct it… why? Why would anyone do this? For beauty… for art? the question is more exciting and stimulating than any answer I could propose.