I've dedicated 25 years to my career as an arts professional, and I'm currently feeling exhausted and disenchanted with the system. Despite the rhetoric surrounding equity, diversity, and inclusion, I, even with my privilege, encounter acts of oppression within the art world. The struggles shared by Indigenous people about stolen land and culture, their truths dismissed, and the myriad barriers hindering recognition parallel those faced by settler artists.
This isn't to downplay the impact of colonization on Indigenous communities but to emphasize systemic issues. The arts, certain artists, and institutions are often placed on white pedestals, untouchable and unwilling to acknowledge their role in perpetuating societal divisions through art as a capitalist endeavor rather than a means to understand humanity.
As a performance-based artist engaged in research and community practices, the essence of my work lies in its process. However, the issue arises when others, who witness or participate in my projects, quickly incorporate elements of my ideas into their work without proper acknowledgment.
The narrative rejects the prevailing capitalist notion that every creative idea or project must be owned exclusively, profited from, and that forgetting or overlooking shared influences is an acceptable practice. The perspective presented aligns more with the understanding that artistic ideas evolve through inspiration from other artists and ideas that came before. Rather than claiming sole ownership, the emphasis is on the responsibility of artists to honor their teachers and inspirations and to transparently communicate how these influences shape their work.
The critique extends beyond the individual artist to challenge the broader systemic issues within the art world. It questions the prevailing belief that ownership and profit should be the driving forces, highlighting how this mindset aligns with broader colonization projects. This critical examination underscores the need for a shift in perspective, away from individual ownership and profit-driven motives, toward a more collaborative and transparent approach that acknowledges the interconnected web of artistic influences and ideas.
The acknowledgment of artists as fallible individuals is a crucial aspect often overshadowed by the necessity to project confidence and certainty within the art world. The demand for artistic expression to be bold, assertive, and seemingly flawless perpetuates a culture where admitting mistakes or acknowledging harm done becomes challenging. The pressure to maintain an outward facade of unwavering confidence can lead artists to neglect the impacts of their actions on others and the community at large.
This dynamic is exacerbated by insecurity within the artistic realm. In an environment that often values competitiveness and comparison, artists may feel compelled to present an image of infallibility to establish credibility and recognition. This insecurity-driven need for validation can create a barrier to authentic self-reflection and accountability.
The real issue lies not in the inherent fallibility of artists but in the reluctance or inability to recognize and address harm. Artists who perpetuate a facade of invulnerability out of insecurity contribute to a toxic culture that hinders growth, collaboration, and the overall well-being of the artistic community.
Encouraging vulnerability and humility within the artistic sphere can pave the way for a more empathetic and understanding community. Embracing the acknowledgment of mistakes, learning from them, and openly discussing the challenges faced in the creative process can foster a healthier and more supportive artistic ecosystem. By dismantling the expectation of infallibility, artists can create a space that values authenticity, collaboration, and collective growth, ultimately contributing to a more inclusive and resilient artistic community.
Centuries ago, artists thrived within a society where patrons supported their work and seamlessly integrating the arts into everyday life. However, the contemporary art scene is now dominated by large institutions, prompting artists to seek government funding, thereby creating a palpable disconnect. This shift distances artists from direct community engagement, potentially diminishing the perceived relevance of their work in daily life and contributing to a devaluation of artistic contributions.
In times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, artists have demonstrated resilience by providing content that seemingly emerges from thin air, offering solace and reflection to the public. This echoes the expectations placed on Indigenous communities to freely share their knowledge without proper compensation. The parallel underscores a broader struggle for fair recognition and support within the artistic community, as both Indigenous knowledge and artistic contributions face undervaluation.
To revitalize the arts, there is a call to reconnect with the roots of artistic patronage, embracing a renewed relationship between artists and the public. By recognizing the intrinsic value of art in everyday life and fostering direct community engagement, we can ensure that artists receive the appreciation, visibility, and fair compensation their contributions deserve.
The call to redefine our relationships as artists is a plea for a fundamental shift in how we perceive and cultivate opportunities within the artistic realm. The prevalent belief that validation and opportunities must solely come from institutional and granting sources has left the majority of artists grappling with a sense of struggle and exclusion. By reframing this relationship, we have the potential to foster an arts community where artists not only survive but thrive, contributing explicit value to the public.
This redefined relationship envisions an artistic landscape grounded in principles of earth-care and human-care. Returning to the land and actively listening to Indigenous voices becomes a crucial component of this transformation. By prioritizing these values in art-making and community building, we embark on a journey of re-rooting and re-membering, acknowledging the interconnectedness of artistic expression with the broader context of our shared humanity and the environment.
As this shift unfolds, it promises a future where artists break free from institutional constraints. They will choose to honor their inspirations, openly acknowledge past harms, and celebrate with the public in a way that transcends hierarchical structures. This vision anticipates a day when individuals within the artistic community recognize each other's humanity, embracing the complexities of their experiences, and understanding the interdependence necessary for collective thriving. It is a call for a more inclusive, sustainable, and harmonious relationship between artists, their creations, and the communities they serve.
RESOURCES
Ask anyone on the street how they define public art and they will inevitably refer to it as a sculpture in a park or on the street. That’s been the definition of public art for quite some time.
In 1991, artist, educator and activist, Suzanne Lacy, proposed the term new genre public art to define work that engages the public but may not in fact end with a sculpture. She first coined the term in a public performance at the San Francisco Museum of Art and later in her book Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art. She defined it as art for activism, often created outside the typical art institution, and which the process had the artist engage directly with the public or audience in discussing and creating action around social and political issues. In her own words, new genre public art is “socially engaged, interactive art for diverse audiences with connections to identity politics and social activism.” (1)
Emerging out to the 1990s were these alternative definitions for public art such as contextual art, relational art, participatory art, dialogic art, community-based art, activist art, and the comprehensive new genre public art. Artists began moving from the art institutions into the realm of civic activism. Instead of reflecting social or political issues through metaphors in public art, new genre public art aimed to engage the regular citizen, specifically those from marginalized groups, in creating solutions for these issues.
Examples of this can be seen in the work of Mark Dion and his Chicago Urban Ecology Action Group. Dion, who believes that art and ecology can be fruitful partners in creating solutions for environmental conservation, along with a group of youth from two schools in Chicago, traveled to Belize to learn about the conservation initiatives the country was implementing. They then returned to Chicago and researched the work of different art and ecological initiatives in the area and how the issues of the Belize tropical ecosystem parallel to those of their own environment. This culminated in establishing an experimental field station that would be the site for future art/ecology experiments, guest speakers and future activities. It also acted as the base of operations for weekly community clean-up and restoration projects. (2)
One of Suzanne Lacy’s works, Silver Action, brings women from diverse political and socio-economic backgrounds to discuss the role that women played in political protests of our time. It explored issues that were relevant in British media at the time around aging. Workshops were held with women who participated in the miner’s strikes, disability, ecology and feminist movements. Four hundred women then participated in a five-hour performance split into three tableaux. Each hour one hundred women were seen conversing at small tables. (3)
New genre public art challenges the idea of commissioned public art. Does public art have to be sculptural when in fact the work is for the public? It also challenges the relationship between the viewer to the art piece. Is the relationship the viewer is having withe art the only relationship? And, finally, it challenges the possibility of perspectives. Is the art work suppose to mean only one thing — that which the artist intended it to be. Ultimately, new genre public art aims to engage the public in the creation of an art work that does not necessarily end with a sculptural or typically visual aesthetic and instead engage the public in bringing about change through art.
Knight, Cher Krause (2008). Public Art: theory, practice and populism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-5559-5.
http://distributedcreativity.typepad.com/on_collecting/files/Mark_Dion.pdf
http://www.suzannelacy.com/recent-works/#/silver-action-2013/
We often hear about International Development projects overseas. I’m based Canada. North America. A western nation. And part of a group of Allie nations that won World War II, which initiated this ‘era of development’ many people call the second half of the 20th century. With this new sense of There was a new sense of globalization, rooted in colonial history, working to keep World War three from kicking off.
We found ourselves, suddenlty, in two camps: ‘developed’ and ‘underdeveloped’. And of course the bar was set to a Western standard of living.
Moreover, when the Cold War happened, we found ourselves stacked depending on your level of buddy-buddy with the United States of America. USA, UK and allies as “First World” nations. Soviet Union, China and allies as “Second World”. And, most of those that were left were lumped into the “Third World” standing.
Today, International Development agencies work to ‘develop’ these ‘underdeveloped’ or ‘second’ world’ or ‘third world’ issues. There are a number of growing videos, memes, hashtags and other social media references to first world issues. Like, “My I phone is not the newest anymore” or “I don’t know what shoes to war today”. But, seriously, although we find humour in these small things, the truth is, we do have problems as a western nation. But we assume that we know best when it comes to the development of other countries.
Enter Ghana Think Tank.
Ghana Think Tank, an international collective, flips this power dynamic on it’s head by developing the first world by having third world ideas be implemented in our developed nations.On their site they state:
“Ghana ThinkTank’s innovative approach to public art reveals blind spots between otherwise disconnected cultures, challenges assumptions about who is “needy,” and turns the idea of expertise on its head by asking people in the “third world” to solve problems of people in the “first world.” This process helps people overcome their own stereotypes while being exposed to the stereotypes that other cultures have about them.”
Their work has been most recently featured in the Venice Biennial of Architecture, the National Museum of Wales, Hong Kong/ Shenzhen Biennial of Architecture and Urbanism and the Global Contemporary at ZKM in Germany.
Examples of their work include asking a Moroccan think tank to figure out a way for a newly developing plot of land in Detroit could create a better sense of community but also provide affordable housing in an already gentrified neighbourhood . The project is inspired by the Islamic term Riad: a communal housing around a central courtyard. This came out of a long discussion on social isolation and segregated communities when it comes to USA architecture.
They are also working on a project looking at issues pertaining to the USA and Mexican border.
Ghana Think Tank challenges me to look at the social powers that be internationally. The expectation that just cause we won the war, we know best when it comes to developent.
You can find out more about them by visiting their website. http://www.ghanathinktank.org/#welcome