photo by david_shankbone via Flickr (CC licensed)
Comments on this post should address the initial/primary questions for Module 2:
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
What are the politics of participation—in curating, collecting, critiquing,etc?
How do power and social practice intersect?
How do power and social practice intesect in transmedia environments?
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
In your comment, include any subquestions/extensions/responses that the above questions push you toward. Address Module 2 reading/viewing assignments as relevant, and point us toward any other resources or examples that you may find (be sure to add these to the Diigo group as well!).
Comments should be posted by midnight on Monday, Oct 17.
Limitations are set on who can participate in different types of art through the regulations of museums, galleries, etc. In the article “The arts and the public purpose,” it is proposed that all artistic endeavors be understood as valuable and having a place in “American life.” The American Assembly’s approach to defining the arts is broad and therefore less limiting as to who participates in the creation or presentation of art. Furthermore, the Assembly recognizes that the “arts sector” needs to unify under an umbrella to gain solidarity and thus stability. Unifying the arts sector may reduce barriers of access to the production of art, such as expensive marketing, limited gallery space, etc. Aligning the art sector with supporting public purposes opens up possible sources of funding and transmedia access to promote the arts. Considering transmedia, such as internet marketing, cheaper means to access marketing, promotion, etc are available; an exception is that online access is a privilege of the affluent.
The limitations that sometimes define who can participate in art worlds is clearly addressed in the article “Culture is ordinary.” When Williams discusses culture in regards to the tea shop he is identifying the exclusivity created by the community. Coming from an anthropological background I had almost entirely forgotten the world culture was associated with this meaning. In my mind it is much closer to Williams, relating to education, the arts, traditions. I like Williams additional aspect of the “testing of these” traditions and experiences that is then incorporated into the culture. I find the commonality between the two articles to be the sense that in practice everyone participates in the arts/culture. How then, can the access to participation be broadened through transmedia. Taking the power away from the museums who decide which artists to support, away from the different forms of media who controls what mainstream society is exposed to based on their sponsors?
Commenting on the picture above, I see a connection between the frustration some artists experience when they are systematically excluded from displaying/accessing the market and the frustration the protesters feel as they are excluded from the privileges available to the wealthy. Unfortunately, the “privileges” of the wealthy are not what one may think of when they imagine what “basic needs” are versus “privileges.” I believe at the heart of the protests, as is indicated by the sign in the picture above, is the frustration caused by the concentration of power by the few wealthy at the top of the capitalistic system felt by the rest of the “middle/working/impoverished classes” that support the system that exploits them. As artists can use transmedia to increase their access to the market, I hope the protesters organize enough to use the social media networks, mainstream media, physical signs, etc to increase solidarity across the nation.
Art is generally viewed as a fundamental asset in cultural preservation and development in almost all societies, and because of this, the state has a say in what is curated, collected and critiqued. Public art participation is often viewed as a business, one that sees art as a ‘product’ and public audience as ‘consumers’. Becker’s chapter, “Art and the State” talks about the politics of participation, saying that “the merging of politics and aesthetics… affects what can be counted as art at all” (166). This is both the strength and weakness of political control over art – art is regulated to fit into an agenda or ‘business model’ of what works and what doesn’t and what is deemed to be needed and what is irrelevant. In the reading, “Culture is Ordinary”, Raymond Williams says, “the making of a society is the finding of common meanings” (17). This common collective notion of generating and forming culture may suggest that governmental power should not impose itself on art at all. However, Bill Ivey’s “A Cultural Bill of Rights” shows the positive side of power, suggesting that with a clear set of governmental policies in place to protect the rights of culture, social practice is able to occur naturally.
Social cultural practice within society will be dependent upon what powers influence such participation. When a government chooses to use its power to protect the rights of arts and culture, this in turn will increase the level of social practice within that society. When rights are protected, freedoms of expression and development are preserved. In looking at the freedom of expression, it is important to consider the notion of transmedia. Transmedia avenues present different ways to tell a story, and if art is the story, should we not consider the artist’s original intention behind their art? Or does it matter? If transmedia outlets alter the intended purpose for the art, through various ways the story is told and presented (visually or otherwise) should we not consider the art’s present validity, in relation to the original intention? Or does this become irrelevant for the sake of telling the same story, only differently? Becker poses the question in “Art and the State” asking, “Suppose I know just what an artist intended in a work – not so easy to know – can I, legally or morally, alter it just because I own it?” (172). The use of transmedia does a fabulous job at telling stories and retelling stories (recreating art) in a slightly different ways. However, because transmedia allows for the significant changing of stories it also holds the power to impact an artist’s reputation, be it positively or negatively. Copyright laws help to protect the artist’s reputation, and Becker suggests that, “The laws assume that without such protection no one would expend the effort necessary to produce the works, whose production the state finds desirable and wishes to encourage” (169). Such laws are beneficial in promoting invention and artistic creation.
The famous phrase “the personal is political” applies to the politics of participation especially in art worlds. The arts are personal, representing someone’s culture, beliefs, and creativity which make the arts political especially in a public setting. Individuals who participate in the arts in the United States notice the political undertones for funding, critiquing, implementing and obeying policies, performing, and collecting. However, these political undertones set precedence for censorship and restrictions. This censorship and restriction leads to as Kate Farris termed “limitations”. These limitations are the connecting force between power and social practice where the individuals who enforce the censorship and restrictions create a norm for social practice. Yet “Culture is Ordinary”, has warped this notion by discussing how neighborhoods that are diverse with high levels of cultural engagement, have the most power to revitalize communities.
Using Philadelphia as an example throughout this work and after living in Philadelphia this past summer, I believe that it is difficult to find neighborhoods within Philadelphia that have high levels of cultural engagement and are not enforcing the limitations of censorship and restrictions. For example, the neighborhoods that are considered to be lower class are not able to engage in cultural events to the economic costs of tickets and transportation. The individuals within these neighborhoods are being oppressed by the limitations of the upper to middle classes or the neighborhoods who are enforcing the limitations of censorship and restrictions. Many of the upper to middle class neighborhoods in Philadelphia have outdoor concerts but when the middle to lower class neighborhoods have outdoor concerts they are constantly being shut down due to noise complaints from the middle to upper class neighborhoods. This creates a social practice and power intersection and it is as if the restrictions and censorship limitations do not apply to the upper to middle class individuals because they have the “power”.
With this in mind, I am also concerned with Kate Farris’s question of how can transmedia allow access to the participation and the engagement of the arts for the lower to middle class individuals when the middle to upper classes are controlling the transmedia art world. Utilizing transmedia has economic benefits for the affluent or privileged but for the oppressed it feeds into their cycle of oppression. By not allowing the oppressed to be represented or utilize the benefits of the affluent such as internet access or computer usage, adds to the cycle of how power and social practice intersect through restrictions and censorship. On the other hand, how do we stop this cycle as the privileged and not the oppressed when we are so reliant and dependent on the system?
Art is generally viewed as a fundamental asset in cultural preservation and development in almost all societies, and because of this, the state has a say in what is curated, collected and critiqued. Public art participation is often viewed as a business, one that sees art as a ‘product’ and public audience as ‘consumers’. Becker’s chapter, “Art and the State” talks about the politics of participation, saying that “the merging of politics and aesthetics… affects what can be counted as art at all” (166). This is both the strength and weakness of political control over art – art is regulated to fit into an agenda or ‘business model’ of what works and what doesn’t and what is deemed to be needed and what is irrelevant. In the reading, “Culture is Ordinary”, Raymond Williams says, “the making of a society is the finding of common meanings” (17). This common collective notion of generating and forming culture may suggest that governmental power should not impose itself on art at all. However, Bill Ivey’s “A Cultural Bill of Rights” shows the positive side of power, suggesting that with a clear set of governmental policies in place to protect the rights of culture, social practice is able to occur naturally.
Social cultural practice within society will be dependent upon what powers influence such participation. When a government chooses to use its power to protect the rights of arts and culture, this in turn will increase the level of social practice within that society. When rights are protected, freedoms of expression and development are preserved. In looking at the freedom of expression, it is important to consider the notion of transmedia. Transmedia avenues present different ways to tell a story, and if art is the story, should we not consider the artist’s original intention behind their art? Or does it matter? If transmedia outlets alter the intended purpose for the art, through various ways the story is told and presented (visually or otherwise) should we not consider the art’s present validity, in relation to the original intention? Or does this become irrelevant for the sake of telling the same story, only differently? Becker poses the question in “Art and the State” asking, “Suppose I know just what an artist intended in a work – not so easy to know – can I, legally or morally, alter it just because I own it?” (172). The use of transmedia does a fabulous job at telling stories and retelling stories (recreating art) in a slightly different ways. However, because transmedia allows for the significant changing of stories it also holds the power to impact an artist’s reputation, be it positively or negatively. Copyright laws help to protect the artist’s reputation, and Becker suggests that, “The laws assume that without such protection no one would expend the effort necessary to produce the works, whose production the state finds desirable and wishes to encourage” (169). Such laws are beneficial in promoting invention and artistic creation.
As supported by the Mark J. Stern and Susan C. Seifert reading, the politics of participation are greatly supported by groups of diverse populations. Likewise, there are also different modes of participation depending upon the populations that support them. There seem to be certain types of organizations that reach out to certain populations, or perhaps, it is naturally created as such. As the reading states, within Philadelphia, smaller, alternative arts organizations have a tendency to reach out to more culturally and economically diverse populations while the more mainstream arts organizations, such as the Philadelphia Museum of Art, tend to reach out not only to more homogenous groups, but also the more prosperous populations. Regardless of what way a population is involved with the arts, it is important that it the interaction exists:
“One of the greatest challenges – and potentials – of the arts is to maximize their capacity to introduce audiences to cultures other than their own, thereby promoting tolerance.” –from the Saguaro Seminar
It is thought that the “responsiveness of government” can be determined often from the public’s involvement with the arts. As stated earlier, the arts creates, as the Saguaro Seminar says, civic engagement. This tolerance creates an overall well being of society. The possible social issues that the arts have the potential to address create a dialogue amongst the community. Engagement and participation give a community the opportunity to be represented and to create an identity not only individually, but also locally and even nationally. It gives the power back to the community, creating a feeling of being part of a bigger picture.
The access, however, to these organizations is limited, as Lexie and Kate have already addressed. While the more prosperous populations are more involved in the mainstream patterns of arts, the diverse populations are more involved in the alternative patterns of arts. Why is this so? Does this create segregation amongst the arts? Does one pattern have more significance than the other?
As Williams says “culture is ordinary.” I am always surprise by our insatiable efforts to define culture, and it is refreshing to read texts such as “Culture is Ordinary” by Williams where he discusses how culture is not static but always including “new observations and meanings.” This flexibility in culture and its expressions, such as the existence of art worlds, is shaped by the context that they occur. “The Arts And The Public Purpose” shows how the arts can, and are shaping the contexts that they are created in. The American Assembly describes the arts as a key element for a “healthy Republic” and by doing so it shifts the power of social transformation from a few industries to the broad range of participation that exists within the arts, from artists to consumers. It is important to highlight the power shift from established industries to the individuals participating in an industry, in this case the arts, and the relationships they built. This shift generates a change in the curating, collecting and critiquing of arts realms. Members of the creative communities ranging from community cultural centers to city-run organizations are taking an active role on deciding what and how the art works are experienced. Thus, challenging the politics of curating or critiquing done from the top down, from experts to museums.
The active participation on the generation and interaction of the art works makes art and culture a strong vehicle for civic engagement, as the Saguaro Seminar article pinpoints. And then looking at the case study done in Philadelphia, by Stern and Seifert, it reinforces that cultural and art organizations create a big chunk of community participation. It is interesting to see how this case study finds the connection between diversity and participation. I see it as an intrinsic need of people to find “common grounds.” The case study brings an interesting point that where there are more ethnically diverse communities there are more cultural and arts organizations. Does this happen because these groups have to reaffirm who they are to themselves again and again? Or what their role is in their communities? Perhaps, this is happening and it is nothing bad, this creates channels of communication to create pluralistic communities. Those communities described in Stern and Seifert’s chapter are shaped by powers: politics, social standard, and economics. And these powers regulate the type of participation people have, they can determine the resources they have access to or the attitudes toward how they engage with their communities. These determinant factors are expressed in the unlimited creation of trasmedia participation, they are as diverse as their creators. The transmedia formats break the limitations set by powerful established organizations, which in the past have determined what kind of participations exist and by whom. Does it mean that transmedia can create more diverse communities? Or perhaps the sole action of transmitting cultural values and expressions different from us will affect social and power structures?
It seems that the artist, regardless of the medium he or she chooses to work in, will be subject to manipulation or censorship at some point in their career, if not from beginning to end. Art worlds, whether in the guise of government or society, large or small, exert an influence over the distribution methods used by artists to disseminate their works, and the climate in which they exist. This influence can be simply irritating or insidious, depending upon the degree of interference. Access to materials, the ability to produce works, and the ability to have works of creative endeavor available to the public can all be influenced, promoted or demoted, depending upon the whether the work in question can add or detract from interests of those in and with power. Becker, in his article Art & the State, gives numerous examples of how artists are at the mercy of ruling bodies, whether governmental or societal. They (ruling bodies) can impinge upon the right of artists in numerous ways, not only stifling their ability to produce and present work, but also inhibit free expression through the use of censorship that evolves into self – censorship.
Until just before the end of the last century, the means of distributing works of artistic expression were pretty standardized – print, film, recordings, radio and TV. Because of the cost involved in using any one of these mediums on a large, public scale was cost prohibitive to most artists, they were more or less subject to the whims of the community standards and the political parties that were in power. With the advent of new means of communication, computers and the Internet, opportunities for artists to make their work available to a greater audience and circumventing the usual channels have increased dramatically. Trans media avenues such as desk top publishing, recording software programs such as Garage Band, have put the power in the hands of the artists. Censoring can, and still does exist. Sites on the Internet are shut down, videos are pulled because of copyright infringements, etc., etc., etc.
Censors can still have their day in the sun, often for political purposes, and in very public fashion. They can still alter the public’s perception of what art is and whether it is fit for public discussion. Take for instance the self – censorship that occurred last Fall at the Smithsonian Institution’s Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. An 11 second video clip from a 20 minute video presentation was taken out of context and was turned into a political firestorm by Republican operatives seeking ways to cut funding to the Smithsonian, for promoting art that they deemed “disrespectful” of Christianity. The end result was that the clip was pulled within hours of the story breaking, and threats of funding cuts eventually became a reality. I know this personally, for because of budget cuts, my position in the Exhibits Department was eliminated. That is the reality of policy that is agenda driven, and it can have a ripple effect not only the people who create and support art, but on the economy that exits because of art. I no longer have a job to go back to after graduation because of these funding cuts. Very chilling indeed.
Participation in the arts was once only available to a high class society. This is changing. Art is becoming more available and accessible to many, regardless of class and culture. Power is shifting, and for art to be accepted, it no longer has to be defined by money, popularity or even traditional talent. Transmedia outlets, such as the internet, allow for everyone, from amateurs to professionals, to participate, create, and even exhibit their own art. There are much fewer limitations today as to who can participate, although art, in all forms, is still far from being inclusive.
Raymond Williams feels that “culture vultures”, which he describes as a pretentious sect of art appreciators, have compromised both the words “good” and “culture” by trying to make art a distinctively high class activity. In this way he defines power as a classist tool to define what art is. I agree with Williams’s conclusion that this is excluding participation by limiting who can contribute. However, by calling to reject this type of art society, Williams is also guilty of exclusion through judgment. Yes, art needs to be more accessible to all classes but the author offers no solution to the problem.
The article by Stern and Seifert does. They focus on an urban culture defined by ethnic and economic diversity in Philadelphia, and found that instead of drawing out segregation, arts and cultural organizations tend to combine societies in order to define an identity. They offer no definition of what “art” is, but point out that participation in cultural and art organizations help unite a community of diverse backgrounds. While pointing out how some cultural divisions still appear, as in mainstream versus alternative art, their findings recognize change point towards art inclusivity.
In a capitalistic economy such as ours, “art” is seen as property, requiring regulation in the form of laws. The article Art and State defines many circumstances in which art requires outside legal intervention, and I feel it defines power as the system of government that creates and enforces the laws pertaining to art. Can art and legality be separated? Should they? Do laws inhibit an artist or allow him/her/them to create art more freely under protection? Power, in terms of legality, reduces participation by forbidding changes to a work or art unless done by or consented upon the original artist(s) but at the same time it protects the artists’ rights by ensuring creative security.
We the artists and administrators create our own politics of participation. Ultimately it is up to those curating shows, and collecting art to display in museums and galleries to decide what goes into these forms of public viewing. This is even relevant to a degree in transmedia. This participation in this practice puts artists subject to biases of the curators, collectors, administrators, what have you, thus creating a degree of censorship.
Luckily, there are so many artworlds that we have created which allow us the freedom to exercise the expression and exploration of our globe’s creative voice. According to A Cultural Bill of Rights by Bill Ivey in 1.) Heritage, we have “the right to explore and audition the cultural heritage of others to observe and accept difference through the expressive lives of those unlike ourselves, including people of other nations” (p 1). We the people choose which shows, exhibits, and various forms of transmedia to expose ourselves to. Not all cultures accept this practice, or even the practice of exercising freedom in expressing the artistic voice. For example, Thailand is in a current transitional period of exploring expressionism as the traditional culture is of ‘save face’. It has been looked down upon to create art that is of other topic from everyday life field work, portraits, or religious content. Now a day, it is becoming acceptable to create works that express opinion and emotion. These works are also being shown in more modern and progressive environments such as university galleries or in galleries of newer areas of cities. From what I know, in my lifespan, North Americans have always had the freedom to express what we like without cultural restraints- of course, there have been controversial topics, and ultimately there are social consequences depending. I just opened up a can of worms. What exactly does it mean to have freedom of speech?
Censoring in artworlds is done by choosing what is to be displayed. It is one thing to create, and another to curate. To do both is optimal, and yet it is two jobs. Curators have a certain power over artists, yet at the same time, artists collectively have the ability to create options from what curators choose from. Both are dependent upon one another to exist. In transmedia, multiple vehicles are used to transmit the information/content of the art works. This puts more power in the artists’ hands because it opens up more opportunity to get it out in different angles. Curators can impose biases upon artists’ work by means of how it is displayed as well. When multiple vehicles are involved, it gives viewers a variety of ways in which the work can be interpreted, thus revealing variables and biases. This encourages grounds for individual criticism upon the work and exercises authentic thought. Transmedia can accurately convey the complexity and diversity of Americas’ human and material artistic resources to citizens of the world- a point of Art and Diplomacy in the Cultural Bill of Rights.
Artists choose what artworlds they are a part of, given they are accepted within the social red tape. Our community environment creates the platform which has potential to promote self-awareness, pride, community health, etc, as the Roadside Theater, an itinerant troupe based in rural Appalachia mentioned in the Saguaro Seminars. But again, this is something provided by administrators. We need to collaborate together to form our own desired societies and create our own freedom through inclusion.
H.S. Becker explains the role of the state in controlling the broader contexts of art making within a nation. Bill Ivey explains the triumphs and failures of the state to govern that control for the benefit of arts and cultural organizations. Both authors make clear the issues with bureaucratic power and arts policy, an understanding far too seldom clear to arts executives across the state’s boundaries. Raymond Williams, on the other hand, explains the democratic nature of culture. That everyone has it, that it’s in the blood and part of the identity of every group and place, and thus, not owned by anyone- no more the teahouse patrons than the valley’s farmer. In that vein, he makes the issue of appropriating culture, of culture vultures, void because all have equal claims on culture and heritage. With this knowledge as the backdrop, Ivey addresses the shift in success for the matching grants to non-profit benchmark arts organizations; so that the volume of NPO’s compared to the resources allocated for this funding model allow fewer and fewer well funded organizations. Clearly, this paradigm is shifting from a state sponsored art world to one that relies on a combination of revenues for the NPO as well as the commercial and for-profit folk and social organizations providing relevant cultural programming. Which is about time, because as the “American Assembly,” Ivey, and most Americans agree, “artistic excellence can be found in popular and folk culture just as much as in the fine arts.”
To respond to Sarah and Lexie, I think the following addresses one part of the solution for the engagement of economically disadvantaged populations. In my experience in Louisville, Kentucky, there was a clear correlation between the organization’s that struggled the most (there the orchestra, opera, and Bach society), and their lack of endeavoring to offer the community artistic representations corresponding to their own identities. The offerings haven’t looked like the communities they serve (especially those with a statewide mission); therefore most of that community (especially those outside of the city where the organization is based) does not feel comfortable attending. The primary policy of the state for the past fifty years has been focused on bringing high art to the masses, rather than glorifying their community identity and showcasing the local artistic excellence.
The example of Appalshop serves this concept well. Appalshop was created as a response to the declaration of the War on Poverty on the front porch of Kentucky’s Eastern Appalachians, and was originally designed to train youth in the skills of film and sound production, to help them escape the poverty and social conditions of their hometowns. What happened instead was that the youth engaged in the project turned their lens on their community, and ultimately became a regionally focused program that has slowed the brain drain in that region.
Both high art access and cultural preservation are needed, while high art experiences transform the spirits of patrons of all ages and identities across the states, I firmly believe that you must first engage an audience before trying to transform them. That it not only works better for your bottom line, but that this participatory model offers more respect and authenticity to the community than does the historic one. The latter policy model opens the gates of participation to the masses via a democratic process of choosing the art world that they want to or already are participating in.
Transmedia storytelling already allows for participation and performance of the arts in areas with low benchmark arts participation. As Carlton Turner explained in the NEA video we watched a few weeks ago, rural Appalachian communities rarely seek operatic or orchestral performances, but they do often engage in traditional dance (flatfooting and square dancing) and bluegrass/string band music. Deep South communities also fall below average regarding participation of benchmark arts, but most communities have longstanding traditions in choral groups and bands. In both of these environments, people continue to play, record, make dances to, and art about stories and songs that have been handed down from one generation to another for a century. It may not be the art and culture you expect, the culture of the teahouses in William’s essay, but art and culture is actively made and adapted one generation to the next.
Politics cannot be separated from aspects of art such as curating, collecting, and critiquing. Power dynamics abound in who is being represented, what is being “shown”, and where performances occur in communities and institutions. Lastly power and access issues play out in transmedia environments, since communities vary widely in written, oral, and technological literacy.
Raymond William’s discusses “culture” not only in the aesthetic or artistic sense, but also in the everyday living of life—which is just as deep and relevant for a community as an “art world” dictated by the dominant society. He points out the culture is a “whole way of life” and can also mean “the arts and learning”. These two meanings are often separated in the Western interpretation of culture, but for many indigenous peoples there is no separation—lived experience is art in itself. This has been my experience living and working with indigenous peoples and Native Americans, life is art, and artistic/cultural expressions that take form as performance or material cultures are simply an outward manifestation of this holistic concept.
Although I am supportive of many of “The American Assembly” bullet points addressed in the “four public mandates”, I wondered who they (the Assembly) are and whom they represent. The dominant culture (Anglo-European) in general dictates what is considered art and who is funded. Without equal representation of Native Americans, immigrants, minorities, people of color, and other diverse populations (religious, sexual orientation, age, gender), how can “the arts help to define what it is to be American”? (p. 66). I like that, on page 64, the Assembly states, “we insist on a recognition that the arts include the whole spectrum of artistic activity in the United States”, which leaves open the door to consider many cultural expressions as valid “art worlds”.
Those engaged in curation and promotion of performance art and artistic material culture should always consider accessibility to various communities across transmedia platforms. Oral, written, and technological literacy issues can build strong cultural connections between communities or hinder them as well. Acknowledging accessibility in the planning of exhibits, shows, and events can help to avoid creating barriers around public and cultural art worlds for both individuals and communities.
Ahava has brought up a very pertinent topic for me, personally, on the issue of accessibility of transmedia platforms. The American Assembly (2000) states in Art and the Public Purpose that electronic distribution is a valuable means of reaching a wider audience in non-profit arts organizations that have much less capital to work with than larger, commercial arts organizations. (pp. 69-70). While there is no doubt that the Internet has revolutionized the sharing of information, creating overall a greater accessibility, who is looking out for the populations without access to computers or the Internet? How can arts and cultural organizations effectively reach, or represent, publics without these luxuries?
Like Ahava mentioned, since communities vary widely on written, oral, and technological literacy, power and access are huge obstacles in transmedia environments. Two populations in America are really at a disadvantage in this shift toward electronic means of communication: rural communities and the elderly (or more mature populations). There are still many rural areas in America (including where I’m from in southeast Ohio and West Virginia) that do not have access to the many benefits the Internet can provide because they cannot afford a computer or Internet service. Some areas are still not even equipped to provide Internet access even if you can afford it. Senior citizens also are at a disadvantage in the unique transmedia participation technology provides, simply because many of them have not had any training in how to use contemporary computer hardware. I do believe that transmedia platforms presented online are a wonderful tool, but in a society that relies on the web for almost everything, I think we should keep populations in mind that do not have access to such a wonderful asset when thinking about audience outreach.
Another example of politics in participation was last week’s seminar on ChinaVine. Although I think ChinaVine is a great tool to spread the arts and culture practices of China to the US, I am deeply concerned about it being a sort of “one-way communication.” It was noted that ChinaVine gave the opportunity to those who may not get to share their arts and culture to the rest of the world (presumably because lack of any transmedia/Internet access) a chance to be represented—with their many cultural assets being accessed by Americans. But after the cameras and ChinaVine team members leave, what happens? The arts and culture get exposed to a larger audience, but do the Chinese participants get a chance to see what impact ChinaVine has made? Without access to the Internet, it seems like ChinaVine’s communication never quite makes it full-circle after the documentation has been taken. Is it the responsibility of the ChinaVine team to go back to these areas that do not have access to the fruition of the project and show the final product? I think this weighs heavily on our definition of participation and whether or not this is a fair method of using creating transmedia projects in cultures without widespread Internet access.
As expressed in the first two articles Art and the State and Art and the Public Purpose the government of any state has a vested interest in art for a wide scope of reasons. As Becker explores how the state is involved in the cooperation of art, artist’s property rights, secures the rights of non-artists, and censor’s art for the morals of the public. All art has the potential to have politics behind it, although not always likely. Laura talks about how art is becoming more accessible to a wider audience and the studies on participation in Philadelphia cite that in a five county region there were 15,000 organizations that relate to art and culture. That many people and organizations involved leads to an intersection between the state’s governing and these various organizations facilitating social practice. In the Art and the Public Purpose article the thought that the Internet is making art more accessible is briefly mentioned. However, in Re-presenting the City Sterns points out that art involvement as an individual or from the home via Internet is not creating social practice. I agree with this notion, in order for art and culture to be “engine’s of economic revitalization” and to facilitate bonds within a community and bridges between two communities, art needs more participation than just the Internet. There needs to be a collection of people spectating, performing and presenting art and culture in order for their to be an impact.
I think in contemporary times with our current economic downturn our government has turned away from the distribution of art and that power is now resting on other art and culture facilitators. And this could be why there are so many organizations in art and culture. An example is that art is found significantly less in schools, usually being one of the first programs cut. Evidence of this shown in this clip from the TV show Glee: http://www.fox.com/glee/videos/1259414/sues-corner?cmp=user_post
What I found interesting about this is that Glee is a transmedia environment for art; it brings performing arts to the individual in their home and explores how art has a positive impact on lives. In brings many songs and theater shows to a different audience via high school singers and a TV plot. Further, the show demonstrates art advocacy by including commercials such at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS-iYG6Jb4o. Hopefully mainstream shows such as Glee that advocate for involvement can do more than simply be a means of interacting with art from your couch. Could it be argued that all the people that went and saw Glee in theaters across the nation were not simply being couch potatoes? It also would be interesting to see statistics about glee clubs becoming more popular across then nation as a result of this show.
Becker’s statement in his article Art and the State saying, “The merging of politics and aesthetics thus affects what can be counted as art at all…“ is an interesting way to think about how art is even considered art. It’s true that some art is so controversial it is not allowed into museums, or some is not considered worth viewing. People’s aesthetic preferences influence what is and is not considered art, and especially if that person has a high reputation in an art world. This can be seen in the scenario presented in Becker’s article, where art worlds allow certain changes to art, but condemn others that are outside of the prescribed norm of that art world. This retains order and keeps the power of art and art culture in certain hands.
There is no question that art has power and is used in many ways in social practice. An example of this on a large scale would be the use of art to connect people to their national identity. This can be seen by the way people connect to their country’s flag, or how people react to art that goes against their symbols of national identity. Take the case of Dread Scott and his exhibition of how to properly display the American flag; this lead to many people erupting with anger and not a few people trying to deconstruct the exhibit itself. Another more immediate example of how art can bring people together, in a transmedia context would be the use of the internet’s vast resources to start the occupy Wall St. movement. This transmedia environment is interesting because it gives power to those who might not have it before, as the art worlds or the government cannot control who posts their art or their ideas, because the internet is so vast and has so many outlets, it’s easy to spread an idea that may not have any ground in any other social area.
Here’s the link to the Dread Scott website for more information on this exhibit:
http://www.dreadscott.net/artwork/photography/what-is-the-proper-way-to-display-a-us-flag
And here is a link to the Occupy Wall st. tumbler page, as an example of how it unifies people:
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
I’m interested in the different ways the readings may be “rating” the amount of “social capital” that is gained by a society that is involved in the arts. This is what it seems the Saguaro Seminar hoped to explore, and I have to say it seems very confusing to try to gauge the larger picture in this way (the seminar calls it “bearing civic fruit”.) So often we are made familiar with mirco-stories of the subjective ways art is meaningful to a person or smaller likeminded community. Module 2, however, seeks to understand how exactly arts participation looks on a grander scale. How can we make sense of all that fruit and what its larger connotations and changes are? Should we enact public policies that support these endeavors? The evidence, at least the evidence discussed at the seminar, looked like small studies (arts and prisoners, artists and voting habits, arts and achievement in schools, etc.)
It seems to me that the whole “power shift” that our discussion board is talking about stems from the new more reflexive mode arts organizations are taking on, particularly the idea that traditional art worlds and their state institutions are more aware of their roles as “knowledge makers” or gatekeepers of general discourse given to different arts. They seem to want to remain as dynamic and changeable as the communities they serve. I wonder then, how Bill Ivey envisioned his Cultural Bill of Rights to be used- Is it meant to help these art communities reach out to the public, or more to educate the public on why they should strive to participate in artistic endeavors?
I do not think arts and the public sector will get an easy-to-define guidebook any time soon as many ideas about “art” continue to be redefined themselves!
A statement struck me from Becker: “When objects or performances are made into property to be sold…” For me, this places a limiting definition on art. Now, art is professional or amateur, public or private. These distinctions force art to fall to two extremes. Art considered to be professional (made into property to be sold) becomes intangible while amateur art is often ignored or lost. Soon, only professional art is actually considered art and becomes this elusive benefit available only to the wealthy, educated or privileged. Rather, I was drawn to the concepts of Raymond Williams. “Culture is ordinary”. It (culture) is in some form natural to everyone. In some form available to everyone beyond the restrictions of professional versus amateur, high art versus popular art or nonprofit art versus commercial art. But rather, “culture is ordinary”. Art is ordinary, it can be found in daily life. As mentioned in The Arts and the Public Purpose, “-from Sunday School Christmas pageants to symphony orchestras to fashion design to blockbuster movies”. Transmedia is allowing art in daily life to exist again. By breaking down the boundaries of accessibility, transmedia is bringing art “into the home” again. However an individual defines their home. Bringing with it a resurgence of tradition, family and community. Free from any limiting definitions.
The politics of participation are widely observed in all art worlds. There are so many barriers and stigmas placed on certain types of art. We categorize arts as “high class” or “low class” and require certain skills to participate/use a synonym in them. This is not a new phenomenon either. The arts have always been highly political. Some forms of art are not even available to all people such as museums and galleries because of cost of admission and location, while other artists like musicians, presented directly to the people are often not even considered art in the ‘high class’ sense. In the article Culture Is Ordinary, the author impressed upon readers that all people make their own culture, and each society no matter how simple or unsophisticated they may seem to outside eyes, they each produce their own legitimate art and experience art in their own way. The idea of segregating types or classes of arts, or reducing forms of art to a lower and therefore unworthy class all together, because they do not fit into a certain person’s cultural context (i.e., high or low class) is a purely political act.
Power and social practice constantly intersect in that as we, as people, engage in society, we are constantly balancing the constraints of the powers that be. In response to the picture of the protestors it is a constant battle between social action and compliance with authority. People in power influence social action, whether in a good/bad, positive/negative, peaceful/violent way. We engage in power plays with each other even on personal levels, and many forms of art are expressions of opinions and ideas, which is a move of power to put our ideas out into society for people to observe and discuss. As in the material on the website provided on the Saguero Seminar, it can be seen that the arts both allow people and push people to engage in civil participation. The arts inspire people to perform better and create better communities. There is always a power play from the government to make cuts to the arts as they are seen as frivolous. But the arts are intrinsic to propelling our society toward positive action. That’s what study’s seem to show.
The greatest thing that I have come to realize in the world of arts is how it is being used now with transmedia. Thanks to film, pictures, radio, TV and the Internet, we have access to endless forms of information/everything. The use of media to transport and show art allows people to prominently display their causes and their works. The power of art is now more tangible then ever. Now a work of art, a political statement or a protest movement is not isolated, or subject to the time it takes to spread orally, it is worldwide and immediate. The masses could attempt to regain power from the few because of this ability to broadcast politically charged themes in art.
Instead of macro-political systems (participatory culture and the state), I’m more interested in the mico-political systems inside the participatory culture. Transmedia is booming—so what do we do with it? The power structures are developing alongside transmedia itself. Have we created an effective democracy of participation? Power and social practice definitely intersect in transmedia environments, but I don’t think that it’s evolved into a purely egalitarian interaction. For example, let’s look at the socialization of the “internet troll.” Those who are the loudest, have the most extreme views, or are the most offensive (often a combination of all three) garner the most attention from other participants, who feel compelled to argue with the trolling individual. The troll controls the discussion, and often silences others who may have had something important to contribute but instead are forced to contend with the troll.
Judith Donath, founder of the Sociable Media Group at the MIT Media Lab warns of the disruptive and destructive consequences of trolling. She says that trolls can disrupt valid discussions, give other participants bad advice, and hurt the feeling of trust among the participants. She also warns that new participants may be discouraged from participating because they see the hateful messages from others attacking the troll, and fear they will be similarly attacked.
However, Williams seems to support this kind of argumentative discourse: “The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions and its growth is in active debate under the pressures of experience, contact and discovery, writing themselves into the land.” In short, trolls may provide an opportunity for other participants to unite in defining culture under the cause of defeating the troll. Furthermore, the trolls also push the boundaries of acceptable behavior and ideas. Isn’t that one of the purposes of art, to examine the status quo and step beyond? Trolls may inadvertently focus cultural discourse through their attention-seeking and disruptive antics.
Of course, the first step to ensuring participatory equality in transmedia environments is providing every voice with equal access to the environment, whether through technology or opportunity. But the second step must be that every voice has an equal opportunity to be heard, and that voices aren’t drowned out by trolls.
And in keeping with another aspect of the politics of the internet: TL;DR. Trolls may be a valid part of the participatory ecosystem, but please don’t feed them.
I agree with Karen when she says, “We the artists and administrators create our own politics of participation. Ultimately it is up to those curating shows, and collecting art to display in museums and galleries to decide what goes into these forms of public viewing. This is even relevant to a degree in transmedia. This participation in this practice puts artists subject to biases of the curators, collectors, administrators, what have you, thus creating a degree of censorship.”
There is always someone in between the artist and the public/art consumer, and in our market driven society that tends to be the curators because they are beholden to the wants of the public.
The Cultural Bill of Rights states that it is, “The right of Americans to engage art and art making of the highest aesthetic quality, especially art that embodies universal truths or art of quality that auditions the unique character of diverse nations and communities.” While it is our right to create, that does not guarantee that the work will be considered relevant or important enough for inclusion in museums and galleries.
There are alternate forms of self-representation that are less dependent on financial support and public approval such as web galleries, zines, cooperatives and independent galleries that can almost eliminate the dependence on curators. These outlets lack the potential for what is defined by many as success in the art world, gallery representation, inclusion in museum collections and a presence in the popular consciousness. It also opens the potential for misunderstanding of the artwork due to the avoidance of mainstream art presentation as mentioned by Becker in his story of the spray painted poem.
Furthermore, if it was not political, why was it spray painted on public walls instead of using more conventional channels…it was simply a case of a poet who had not been able to get his work published. Using the means of distribution suited to an underground political message in a country in which censorship was then a daily fact gave the poem a political potential.”
This misinterpretation can be used to the artist’s advantage of course. By putting their art out in an environment already viewed as political or underground, it adds an edge to it. They can act out against the establishment and go their own way, thus creating an aura of independence, though that independence is made more interesting by the system it resists. Without the traditional process of curation and exclusivity of the mainstream, the underground would be just another artistic platform. Perhaps as more artists take part in non-traditional means of art promotion they will become more mainstream.
As described by The American Assembly’s article on the Arts of the Public Purpose, the arts are capable of many things, but at their core, “they tell our personal and national stories.” The ability to share your story or the story of your group helps create visibility and visibility is so frequently at the heart of power. In fact, because the whole idea of transmedia is that you can share a story or idea through so many different forms of media, computers and the internet make that visibility more achievable.
Of course, as Richard mentions, in spite of new, more accessible avenues for storytelling and art making and distribution, censorship is still an issue threatening participation in the arts. As I was reading Becker’s Art and the State article regarding the various ways the state especially can impede the art making and seeing I did also think about ways that censorship (at least in its milder forms) is not always the worst thing for art. For example, Becker discusses the state “withholding the forms of support artists need and depend on” as a type of intervention in the arts. And while this is true, a lack of funding does not necessarily mean an artist cannot create, but may change the media, but not the message. For a more concrete example (and more direct form of censorship), I again look to Richard’s post about the National Portrait Gallery’s Hide/Seek show and their removal of the David Wojnarowicz video. Though ultimately I think they made a mistake and bowed to the censors, the scandal created a storm of press about the show and the piece and probably many more people learned who Wojnarowicz was as a result. This is all not to defend censorship and say it is positive, but in this case (and in others, see the Washington Post’s Art Controversies timeline: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120100216.html) controversy can create a dialogue that engages the public in a new way and even help shift the power dynamic.
I would argue that people commonly think that power has a negative effect on one’s ability to engage in social practice. The chapter “Art and the State” seems to speak to this issue. It discusses viewing cultural creations as opportunities for commodity. “Art and the State” also speaks of authorities sometimes viewing art as a nuisance over the governance of society. And while there are real examples of power prohibiting and interfering with forms of social practice – such as what is currently being seen in the Wall Street take over in New York City – I think it is important to view power outside this lens that seems very natural to us (the us vs. them mentality).
What I mean by this is that it is important to step away from this evaluation for a moment and to consider the issue of “power” in terms of a type of empowerment that is present and necessary to drive social practice by citizens. In doing so, it is possible to view power outside of the typical realm of elected officials or longstanding laws. I think that power should be seen as something people have; the ability any citizen has to engage in social practice of their choice. In viewing the relationship between power and social practice in this way, it opens up a more positive perspective of citizens’ abilities to participate and engage in their communities in real ways. We now can appreciate power as a driving force, a force that, in reality, births social practices by common people in many forms.
This kind of power (power of the people) spurs actions that often call for regulation by people in charge (such as we are seeing on Wall Street). However, these types of power enforcing actions taken by the government are in response to a stronger power that the people themselves possess. One’s personal power and/or power with a collective group steers their ability to engage in social practices; to create, express ideas, paint their believes, produce controversy among law enforcement and elected officials. It also brings into question current laws.
In a large sense, I was inspired by Laura’s observation in her reflection that stated how, “Participation in the arts was once only available to a high class society…there are much fewer limitations today as to who can participate, although art, in all forms, is still far from being inclusive.”
I think that my discussion of how we choose to view power relates directly to Laura’s observations. The power that ordinary people possess allows them to engage in meaningful and deliberate expression that is stronger than ever before. And while authorities, needless to say, will always hold authoritative power over issues that effect citizens’ forms of expression, I think, as Laura pointed out, the playing field is NOT completely unbalanced. We have power and voice.
Throughout these readings, I could not help but think of the NEA Four and the politics involved in defining “art.” Censorship is a beast constantly battled on numerous fronts, but my mind turned to an issue of somewhat larger scope: how art is approached when looking at our nation’s (generally accepted) social contract.
How much does the very definition of an art exist for the artists and/or for the participants? Perhaps very little, if at all. Being able to identify who makes something (and what they make, and to what end) may be a distinction more useful to those keeping an eye on a larger picture. In short, censors and the politicians who love them are those who set the standards on a grand, publicized scale regarding what qualifies as “art.” My initial reaction would be to reject such an idea; I certainly never signed off on anyone creating those definitions for me. However, by agreeing–implicitly, but agreeing, nonetheless–to be a part of a society, this society, there is a certain extent to which we give others the power to moderate the construction and consumption of many commodities, art not excluded. And these regulations apply to everyone.
Here, then, is where the social contract, politics, art, and participation collide. Politics will look to regulate art for the sake of its consumption; participants will use that very art to make a statement in regards to the workings of the social contract as established through the political system. The American Assembly’s “The Arts and the Public Purpose” provides what I think is the most logical approach to mitigating this collision: establish an arts sector that is taken just as seriously and given just as much weight in politics “as science, health, transportation, and education.”
The defunding of the NEA Four (and, subsequently, of all individual artists who had been funded by the NEA) resulted in quite the cultural stir, even without Twitter feeds to keep the nation plugged in to all the action. As with many moments of cultural disquiet, those who had been disenfranchised simply became more active and vocal than they had been previously, as did their supporters and community members. Only through the continued creation and propagation of that self-same art could change be called for and instigated. Art, no matter what its core topic, serves to instigate discourse on how we live as a society. Never let it be said that participation in art is any less important than participation in politics.
A group of men march down the street in the middle of the night. They are dressed from head to toe in feathers, beads and paint. Some carry drums, others carry staffs. The leader stands out because his headdress is the tallest, his staff is the widest and his gait is the slowest. A crowd gathers on the street and follows the seemingly impromptu parade under streetlamps and over potholes, chanting and singing until blue and red lights illuminate the group and the New Orleans Police Department arrives on the scene, demanding proof of a permit for parading. The tribe of Mardi Gras Indians, with no permit to display, is forced to disband. Suits that they spent a year creating will go back into the closets and garages from where they came, as a part of African-American heritage of Southeast Louisiana is chipped away.
The chief of this tribe reflects on being disbanded in a bitter way. He notes that the city identifies the group of wanderers as a “parade” when it benefits them, as a means to get the Indians off the streets. The chief thinks that the city just wants to get as much money from the permitting process as possible, which would force people who already work to pay for the materials to construct their costumes to spend even more money to maintain this integral part of New Orleans culture. He feels like the Indians are not a revenue-generating tourist attraction and, until the time that they are one, the city and government will continue to make it difficult for them to continue to parade.
This anecdote, from an interview between Alfred Doucette and an Australian radio host, rang clearly in my mind as I was reading Howard Becker’s chapter, Art and the State. Thinking in particular about his treatment of state support and state censorship, I can clearly see where the Mardi Gras Indians can possibly conflict with state goals. Their traditions arose from the relationships of their ancestors with Native Americans in slavery-era history. They continue to represent social activism and anti-racism, while widely acknowledging (and pointing out) how racism has become institutionalized in the Southern United States. If, according to Becker, “[the state] may regard the arts as a positive force in national life, a force which supports social order, mobilizes the population for desirable national goals and diverts people from socially undesirable activities,” the motivations of the NOPD in breaking up the parade mentioned above are clear.
In regards to the consumers of art, the state can and often does control what art is seen by controlling what art is produced. This control could be in the form of funding (or lack thereof), censorship, or its opposite, promotion. By not promoting or supporting the parading of the Mardi Gras Indians in the case mentioned above, the state is trying to control the art to which citizens can be exposed. But, one should not underestimate the power of those artists involved.
The Indians’ main method of communicating their art to others is most definitely through parading. In a technological era where TV was controlled by very few broadcast corporations and the internet and digital publishing didn’t exist (I’m talking the 1950’s here), these artists had very little opportunity to harness their power to produce and display their art in other forms. Now, these artists can and do produce their work on a multitude of levels. They will still be broken up for parading in the streets, but if you are unable to watch them parade on St. Joseph’s Day, you can visit a museum, download photographs, read a blog or watch a documentary about them.
By taking advantage of the many user-friendly methods of communicating ones’ art, these artists are able to do two things: first, they are ensuring that their legacy and work continues by preserving it and continuing to produce it, and second, they are creating a wider audience to consume it. Whereas initially, Indians were hard to find, or their parades were dismantled before they began, consumers of this art can seek them out using different media. Because their art itself is multifaceted – including beading, visual artwork, singing, dancing, poetry – the transmedia platform may lend itself to communicating a more whole picture of their work.
The Indians don’t want you to sit in a coffee shop contemplating the beadwork on their headdress, comparing it to the headdress of the previous year or of the similar outfit worn by a Maori dancer at a festival in 1979. In some ways, the Indians are living proof that culture is in fact ordinary, and that its treatment by the state is what renders it something else. No matter what, in an era of multiple outlets for the expression of their art, the power balance has shifted away from the NOPD and in favor of the Indians as they utilize inexpensive, democratic means (such as blogging on the internet) to both preserve and transmit what they do – whether it’s called cultural expression, art or just plain living.
A few ideas that stood out for me are the ideas of art as “social capital”. Propaganda and political voices (or lack thereof) through art has always been part of curating and collecting and disseminating. Along those lines, I had previously thought of art as an important part of community and sociality but not necessarily as a means of capital. However, after reading this modules readings, I realize that there is and always has been a power dynamic in play, wether it is political, monetary, or societal. How do we see art free from these ideas when there is funding involved (governmental or otherwise) and when art is being made in a public arena or as social practice?
Also in thinking about power and social practice and the idea creating dialogue within needy communities using art as a medium, these two statements from The Arts and Social Practice seminar were of interest; “Dialogue can be made easier and the quality…deeper when people are involved in the art-making process,” states Lerman; and “How do we ensure that inviting artists into needy communities for projects is really collaborative rather than resented for its perceived paternalism? ” These are important points being made, certainly we should involve less-served communities in the creation of their own social practices, but in a way that is meaningful to the communities being served not as a way to exert power or in a postion of “we know what’s best”.
As suggested by Katrina, “Art is generally viewed as a fundamental asset in cultural preservation and development in almost all societies, and because of this, the state has a say in what is curated, collected and critiqued.” I agree with this but the state is also removing the individuals that comprise these societies. Further, it chooses to edit and limit what can be done with what artists create and how others can experience it. There are different levels of informed curators with different agendas working in a spectrum of organizations. There are different aesthetic values placed on a wide range of artwork, and the communities that create the artwork, which influences collections. The American Assembly suggests that art helps us understand ourselves individually as well as ourselves in a greater community. It also suggests that the public purpose of art is never something that is static; its purpose is forever changing and evolving.
The art world, in general, is a human construct that is complicated by individual interpretation/critique. Granted, there is an overall structural control of how one can participate within an art world but that does not mean there still cannot be a strong influence on an individual level. The idea of maintaining control of the publicly acknowledged “art world” by the state or by artists is unrealistic/impractical. I think limitations cannot actually be placed on “art.” Placing limitations on art is a misguided endeavor because one assumes there is artistic intent and there is an agreed upon idea of artistic expression.
I understand the idea that something being created by someone resembles a product. Products have a value and are a commodity. Commodities have rules and regulations associated with them pertaining to ownership and financial worth. However, unlike products, it is an agreed upon notion that artwork involves a spectator for completion. Before art is to become part of the greater art world it must be known, viewed, and critiqued by another person who also agrees that the art should be part of the art world. On the other hand, a product sitting in someone’s home is the same as one sitting in a manufacturing warehouse. There is a difference between product and artwork, though they might at times just both be objects. The idea of someone making something and giving it away without regulations is beautiful. With whom and how artwork is shared is governed by laws and universal truths about artists and their creations. In the performance realm of the arts there is the creation of something that is not physical. It is an experience that is time sensitive. One can record a song or a performance but it is only capturing an instance of something that is much greater. How could/should something like this be managed and protected?
Again, art is a human construct but it is not a human construct that has a universal agreement as to what it can be, should be, or where it is going. Art is a human construct that exists in theory. When art is only viewed as a commodity then it must be regulated, as all things in a capitalistic society. There are artists who are artists as a profession, making artwork to be sold as a form of income. These self-proclaimed professional artists are part of the art world just as established galleries, museums, performances spaces, and professional critiques. The art world, as a part of social and cultural spheres, is much larger and less controllable than this. Transmedia environments, however, appear to allow those not accepting these limitations to engage with art worlds in a more fluid and unrestricted way. As time has passed and society has evolved, the canon of art has been opened. Further, the recognition of what art can be has changed. I believe the surge in transmedia storytelling and participatory involvement within the art world has created a shift in power and social practice as well as the politics of participation. It is difficult to control evolving individualized theory.
[What are the politics of participation—in curating, collecting, critiquing,etc?]
Every person is influenced by a social contract they are obliged to follow. This social contract exists in the national and state laws every person adheres to on a daily basis. If a person does not adhere to these laws, there are often consequences that a person will have to face.
For example, Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography was deemed obscene, and many argued to censor his work. In 2009, the Institute for Contemporary Art (ICA) held a two-day symposium titled Imperfect Moments: Mapplethorpe and Censorship Twenty Years Later. The ICA describes the event by stating, “The show fell victim to public outcry against government sponsorship of ‘obscene’ art when Washington’s Corcoran Gallery of Art canceled its stop on the tour for fear of negative repercussions, especially its possible impact on NEA appropriations.” Furthermore, the show lead to many people questioning the nature of obscenity, offensiveness, and how the First Amendment applies to art. Duchamp’s Fountain is another frequently cited example of this nature. Questions of obscenity, free speech, and free information are pushed even further when individual participation is brought into the picture.
If a government cannot rightly define and wholly control what is and is not obscene, how can they do the same with individual interaction and participation? It seems that in these situations if the government cannot rightly define a behavior, the government cannot necessarily control it either. Such is the case with transmedia participation in digital storytelling. The largely digital nature of contemporary transmedia storytelling causes many individuals to be prosecuted in court, often facing fines up to $150,000 (U.S.C. Title 17, Chapter 5, § 504). An unprecedented ability to copy and paste content in conjunction with abusive, arbitrary copyright law leads to millions of wrongfully labeled and prosecuted criminals. The primary issue is the current judicial system’s intellectual property laws are not up to code with current intellectual property.
[How do power and social practice intersect?]
Power and social practice cannot be separated. Even if power and social practice are separated, they have become connected in their separation. Human beings are born into nations with laws governing daily life. Becker opens his chapter, Art and the State, by arguing, “Artists, audiences, suppliers, distributors, – all varied personnel cooperating in production and consumption of works of art – act within framework provided by legislation” Becker continues to argue that this legislative influence leads art to be treated as a commodity, and this commodity is supported by politicians according to their aesthetic beliefs. Thus, art is lead to be governed by property rights established by politicians assert their aesthetic preferences into federal law.
Depending on parental upbringing, individuals can learn to question these laws and adhere to them in different manners. For example, conscientious objection does not exist as an intellectual device in many places – nor does a social contract regarded by the majority of a governed body. In turn, a parent cannot necessarily teach the concept to their offspring.
In The Arts and Public Purpose, The American Assembly cites a great example of a law governing the arts in general that is in effect for all United States citizens. This law is Article 1, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution, commonly known as the Progress Clause, or the Copyright Clause. Article 1, §8 of the Constitution states, “Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, this power granted by authority of the U.S. constitution is now extended and abused beyond what some argue to be the law’s original scope.
The essence of this clause creates a copyright for an author or creator of intellectual property. This copyright secures particular rights for the author regarding the production and sale of their work. The current duration of these reserved rights is now extended from the original term of 14 years (or 28 years of the author renews copyright) to, in many cases, the life of the author and 70 years. This extension of copyright duration often paradoxical when juxtaposed to the technological development of intellectual property, content, and artistic creation. Nonetheless, copyright duration continues to be extended with no end in sight. This extension is grounded in a system much like that Becker describes – one with political officials in favor of Sonny Bono and Jack Valenti because these individuals provide excellent monetary incentives for political gain.
Contrary to desires of permanent copyright expressed by many political figures, humans live in an age of rapid digital reproduction. When rapid digital reproduction is harnessed by artists and creators as part of an artworld, current political judicial power stifles creation with archaic copyright law that reserves all rights to the copyright owner. In turn, the creative human spirit is either subdued or invigorated to reestablish social practice among current judicial precedence.
How do power and social practice intersect in transmedia environments?]
The Internet Archive is an example of how the current U.S. judicial system mostly fails in modern practice. The Archive is a space on the internet containing one of the largest collections of digital information available for public exploration. Since the Internet Archive’s inception, curation and collection of this massive archive has been faced with political opposition. The vast reach of internet connections requires the Internet Archive to primarily comply with Title 17 of the U.S. Code specifically focusing on copyrights. Since anonymous and public user contribution are encouraged to make the Internet Archive as comprehensive as possible, the Archive is frequently challenged by adhering to copyright law. This adherence is delicately balanced between power and social practice by superb moderation and compliance with any cease and desist notices that may be sent to the Internet Archive.
The reason the Archive is faced with numerous cease and desist notices regarding copyright violation is due to unintentionally illegal user submissions. For example, if an individual purchases copies of a photograph and makes digital copies, then submits these copies to the Archive, they are infringing on the copyright of the original author – this is illegal. Now, if the original author forgoes their copyright and submits their work to the Archive, this is not illegal. Extrapolate the content purchaser’s scenario to millions of people across the country willingly submitting property to the Archive. All of these people are criminals according to current legal precedence in the United States. All of them can be tried and found guilty in a court of law. Yet, what these individuals are doing is perfectly common social practice. In the end, I think the important question to be asked is, “Does social practice validate power, or does power validate social practice?”
I would like to continue Mary Duke’s discussion of “power” as positive force that can be realized and gained, both on an individual and social level, through engagement with arts and culture.
The tag line for this year’s Oregon Arts Summit was “The Currency of Connection”. I think that this phrase is especially significant. It implies that harnessing new methods of connectivity is crucial for the success of arts organizations across the U.S. This new approach and broader audience participation, like money, is extremely valuable and powerful when used effectively.
But why are participatory art opportunities and community involvement suddenly so vital for both the commercial and nonprofit art and culture sectors, alike? I believe it is a result of the current economic, political and social state of the U.S. In periods of economic hardship and high political tension people tend to feel helpless. Individual and communities experience loneliness, loss of control, lessened self-importance, hopelessness, etc. It is no surprise that these people reach out to be heard when given the chance to do so. A participatory arts opportunity puts power into the hands of the participants. By being active contributors, people develop sense of ownership and investment that they may not otherwise feel. Visibility is power. When members of the public can display their work, contribute ideas, and give performances within and even beyond their direct community it can be extremely rewarding and empowering. It says to the world, that you are matter and your story deserves to be heard. For these reasons, a broader population is starting to engage in the arts. Sterns and Seifert would identify this trend as the “alternative pattern”, in other words, “high levels of participation among a set of newer and more experimental cultural institutions” (2000).
There are many arguments and examples from this week’s readings that speak to the ways that artistic expression is controlled and limited by various entities of power, such as governing institutions, large corporations, and a standardized educational system. I am suggesting, however, that the public’s involvement in artistic endeavors and cultural practices can be just as powerful. In fact, it is significantly shaping the practices of art organizations across the country, as we speak.
The readings and materials of this module made me think of the relationship between arts and economics, which I usually avoid to associate. However, the dynamic between economic power, arts and democracy was very interesting to observe throughout the different readings. The paradox of arts and “money”, in their broadest terms, represents this tension between arts as a sacred, privileged sector at the same time as a popular tool for cross-cultural communication.The economic power of art has to be taken into account as argued by Bradford & Wallach who point both at the benefit of transmedia in economics (such as fundraising) and its risk (for example controversies around copyrights).
Arts can serve as both an economic or non-profit sector. As I am personally attached to the non-economic value of art, I wanted to challenge this perspective and understand in what ways arts can both have economic interests as well as social interests. Sterns & Seifert show in their article on urban art how art creates a new way of thinking the city beyond social and racial disparities. As illustrated in the case of Philadelphia, numerous cities in the US have a particular geographic setting that discriminates less wealthy populations by pushing them to the outside of the city center. Sterns & Steifert explain that “community” and local arts can build “bridges” between different categories of population living in different areas, image that I found strong. Places of proximity such as churches and clubs are accessible by all, which encourage participation and communication between communities through the arts. To what extent, however, can arts change the urban landscape as currently controlled by socio-economic dynamics?
I think that the power of arts consists of its ability to transcend economic, social, cultural boundaries as shown by Bradford & Wallach. Arts have to be understood as a “spectrum of artistic activities” instead of a fixed, reserved place for privileged people. Instead, the authors suggest that arts have a “public purpose” and should serve individuals in a democratic way. I found this claim very powerful and wondered to what extent the term “democratic” could apply to arts. As mentioned earlier, I usually avoid associating arts with economics and politics as I believe that it should be an independent world that goes beyond this concrete, materialistic concerns. However, Bradford & Wallach clearly show the potential of arts as a democratic tool in the sense that all the sectors of arts are “interdependent” and therefore reflect a great panel of society. Art, in other words, is omniscient.
Williams argues, in the same way, that art is “ordinary”. Arts engender emotions but belongs to our daily life and is part of our personalities. I was seduced by this idea which made me wonder if art is most successful when invisible.
I totally did post this… in the wrong place… it is on my ePortfolio site… http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/savannab/
Sorry for my late comment because I have to spend too much time to finish reading and digesting the reading materials. But thanks to today’s class gave me a lot of inspiration.
I do not know much about the policy of arts in America, but in most opinions of Chinese people, they think the artists in America have the total freedom to create and folks could hold different points of view as they like. Meantime, I believe there are many Americans think the Chinese government excessively controls the social participation on the leader’s will. Is that true? First, let’s go back in history to 1942. Chairmen Mao gave a speech on a forum on literature and arts in Yan’an. He pointed that all culture, literature and arts belong to a specific class, belong to a certain political line. There is in fact no such thing as art for art’s sake, art that stands above classes or art that is detached from or independent of politics. Almost the whole China be crazy to follow Mao’s spirit at that time, plenty of works were produced in a short time. As the obedient artists were supported by the government, their works (such as the eight model opera) got a high quality. It became the main way of entertainment quickly. Even the kids could sing these model opera at that time. Now, China government states that Mao’s opinion just suit for some specific periods and it indeed contribute greatly for that period.
On the other hand, China government requires some particular social groups such as students and office workers to watch “red movies” sometimes. This phenomenon makes many people think power gross interference in social practice in China. Superficially, forcing people to watch red movie seems like impose government’s political view on the public. Why the leaders have to do this? China has a population of 1.3 billion including 56 national minorities. Different regions have their own dialect, eating habits, values and even looking appearances. Based on the immense diversity of culture features, it is understandable about the connection between power and social practice in China.
In a word, different countries, different national situations lead the power to have different level of involvement to social practice. We not only need to pay attention to micro-scale factors, but also consider macro background.