So this past weekend I went to the Open Engagement Conference on socially engaged art making. Since my research is based in community arts with a focus on collaborative ethical practices, I thought this conference could be a great place for me to do some research. Again, I didn’t find any projects that specifically related to collaborative storytelling, but I think the dialogue from the conference will help guide my research. I find that the most helpful aspect of these conferences is that they expose me to the discussions happening in the field so that I have a better understanding of how to approach my topic. I got to go to several panels, group discussions, artist presentations and even participate in a few art projects! Here is a list of my key findings from the conference:
- In-person outreach for internet based engagement art projects is still important. Successful artists used the audience at the conference to jump-start engagement with their projects. Using the conference as a platform for these kind of projects was a great way to access a diverse audience and allow the conference attendees to physically experience social practice (instead of just discussing it).
- It is difficult to evaluate social practice work. Academics disagree on whether to look at the aesthetic or activist value of the work. It’s also difficult to evaluate durational works since many of these projects don’t have a specific end date. Many presenters at the conference were advocating to allow time for evaluations to match the durational nature of the work. Also, many artists at the conference viewed typical evaluation models as stereotypical and causal and some even advocated for the ethic of not being beholden to evaluation. Some artists expressed that these kind of projects requires a degree of trust since an outcome can not be predicted. This issue also forefronts the need for social practice artists to firmly set the expectations of the project with funders and collaborators before starting a project. The keynote speaker Tom Finkelpearl brought up the idea of “collaborative action research” as an non-economic assessment approach to evaluating these works. Some questions that professionals asked to measure the success of social practice work includes: Did it change us somehow? Does it affect the artist or the non-artist?
- With the difficulty of evaluating durational process based projects, also comes a heightened need for documentation. A panel of museum professionals discussed how the role of documentation has become dominant as they take on more ephemeral works. They also discussed how working with social practice artists has shifted the role of curators from collectors to producers or the museum as a place of presentation to participation. This issue has caused tension between the curator, the registrar and the artist in an institutional setting. Some panels discussed how process based art turns everything into a document, such as email communication. They discussed processes of archiving this work to use as proof of process but also as a method for spring-boarding the next project.
- There is a difference between social practice work by artists and social workers. One attendee to a conference stated that artists have co-opted the work that social workers have been doing for a long time and is now just becoming popular in the institutional setting. The museum panel responded that there is a value differential between artists who imitate other forms and those who add value through reflection. Though since museums are experienced by people who have leisure time, there is a difference in audience to these works. Some people brought of the difference in time commitment that social workers/activists devote to social practice versus an artist who does a residency. I believe this tension could be solved through collaboration rather than competition and comparison.
- An increase in social practice art within institutional settings has made educational departments more visible within hierarchical organizations. Most social practice work is coming out of educational departments since this work involves a high level of engagement and public participation. The museum is now being treated a social space for connection. One museum professional described his residency programming as having no set time limit as to allow the artist to fully develop his/her project. This highlights the expanding role of community development within institutions.
- And of course it is difficult to fund process-based durational projects. This is partly for the politically charged nature of these projects, but mostly because they don’t produce obvious quantitative results, are constantly shifting and happen over long periods of time. One funder at the conference talked of creating broad grant guidelines in order to leave flexibility for social practice artists and provide multiple points of engagement or entry. However, many artists are often left in difficult situations when the funding ends, but the project is continuing. One person asked: How do you even know when the project is over? This is the most difficult part of durational work that relies on community involvement (especially online): the project continues to exist regardless of funding. One artist advocating for make her community her funders in order to connect these elements of social practice work: if the community wants the project to continue it, they can fund it.
Over all, I think I learned a lot from this conference especially about the issues surrounding process-based work. Since I am focusing on the intersections between process and product in collaborative projects, I believe that these key findings will help guide my understanding of how to address my topic. If anything, I now know how difficult it can be to produce, document and evaluate social practice work.