The event was hailed as an opportunity to explore how
artists working with local community groups can, through creative acts, uncover
and support resources pertinent to that community. It was designed as a workshop
for artists working in social practice; with people in changing places. It was an intimate event, due to the size of STAN, but the conversation which the group had was so timely, useful and very productive. Many thanks to A-N, Louise Hargreaves and Dan Thompson for organising, but also enormous thanks to the artists and other practitioners that attended, and contributed to the thinking that follows.
I began by talking about how working in Stoke-on-Trent for
over 10 years on projects which explore the city and its resources and the
artists role within this changing context, I have developed an approach to working
in the city; employing an action research methodology, which is always the
same, even if the context can change drastically. For each new site this
involves spending time really looking,
and researching the place, gaining an understanding of the history,
development, usage and users of the space. Next comes a time for planning an approach to the site, based
on what has been observed and learned; perhaps based on the resources of the
place, or responding in some cases to a need or gap. The planning process is
also where partnerships can be formed around an approach to the site, plus
additional resources are, at this stage, assimilated and the intervention
agreed. Next comes time for action,
carrying out the plan. And finally, and very importantly, comes reflection. The point in the cycle
where the artist and those involved in the project look back at what has
happened, what has worked, what have we learnt? Is there a new understanding of
this place, and is there more to be done? Then of course, the cycle can begin again.
An important aspect of the work is in documenting every step, both visually but also importantly, considering from the
very beginning the importance of collecting thoughts and evaluation materials throughout,
hearing from participants about the site, documenting any changes and then later exploring participant response to the
intervention. This supports the reflection and analysis of the project, but
also ensures as practitioners, we are remaining reflective and receptive to the
context.
Considering the action research cycle, it is possible to involve people at any stage in the
process, and often is best to involve people at every stage, but this really
does depend on the context.
Via this methodology, I was able to set out three projects,
which demonstrate my particular approach, showing how an empty bandstand, an
abandoned garden and a disused pub have all become sites for my practice over
the years, and have all involved working with people, to temporarily and sometime more permanently make changes in the city.
I started by setting out the roots of the word Community:
originating from the French late 14th Century, Comunité meaning
commoness and everybody, it also has roots in the Latin Communis meaning
'Common, public, general, shared by all or many'. This feels important within
an approach to working with people; keeping in mind consideration around
sharing and inclusivity, and perhaps creating a sense of belonging. In my work,
the 'community' I work with may be pre-existing, but equally sometimes the
community forms [temporarily] around the project.
The 3 projects I talked about were:
The Spode Rose Garden
from 2013 onwards, proposed and abandoned garden, as an important green space.
Through a process of intervention and engagement, myself and AirSpace Gallery
have worked to turn around this disused space, which is now a beautiful and
well used asset, transformed by a newly formed group 'The Friends of Spode Rose Garden'. More here.
and The Portland Inn Project, working with artist Rebecca Davies, using
participatory methods to engage a community (with a number of issues ASB, drug
and alcohol problems, etc) in finding an alternative and more positive future
for itself. More here.
Artists have worked with people forever, and the community
arts movement of the 1960s and 1970s has led to an understanding of the way
that artists can work with communities. Socially engaged practice too is not
new, although there is relatively little written about artists working in
social contexts, compared to other areas of the arts.
What is relatively new is an emerging animosity towards
artists working in social contexts, and in particular, to artists working
within contested sites of development. A new online 'Naming and Shaming' of
artists working in these contexts aims to call out artists working in these settings
for being either naive to the role they play in acting as a buffer between
developers and the communities affected by development, or in some cases the
naming and shaming goes further to blame artists for 'artwashing
gentrification' something I found myself accused of in a recent project. An interesting Citylab article from 2014 sets out the
complicated context here. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/06/the-pernicious-realities-of-artwashing/373289/
Those naming and shaming include activist groups, working in particular areas of development, but in addition in some cases artists and academics are attacking other artists online. There have also been cases in America of communities themselves rejecting artists and art galleries in their areas - due to a perception that the presence of artists will lead to gentrification, and the eventual pushing out of communities. It is a complicated matter, and at this stage, not much has been written about the phenomenon, but it seems that for the artists, who are often working in very precarious contexts, often with little support, perhaps in unstable buildings and often with the sensitivities that come with working with people (especially in these contested sites) the addition of this external animosity may lead to artists shying away from working in these contexts at all, something which concerns me, when thinking about the area that I am currently working in, and the great need there.
Those naming and shaming include activist groups, working in particular areas of development, but in addition in some cases artists and academics are attacking other artists online. There have also been cases in America of communities themselves rejecting artists and art galleries in their areas - due to a perception that the presence of artists will lead to gentrification, and the eventual pushing out of communities. It is a complicated matter, and at this stage, not much has been written about the phenomenon, but it seems that for the artists, who are often working in very precarious contexts, often with little support, perhaps in unstable buildings and often with the sensitivities that come with working with people (especially in these contested sites) the addition of this external animosity may lead to artists shying away from working in these contexts at all, something which concerns me, when thinking about the area that I am currently working in, and the great need there.
The conversation at Assembly centred around the need to
create support systems for artists working in precarious settings, but also
showed a need for a set of guidelines and considerations, in relation to working with people.
Answers and votes:
- Value the artist's role in this context (we bring something
different.) 6
- Recognise time and investment needed, (for this kind of
work) before, during and after. 5
- Be a supporter and champion for other artists working in
these contexts 2
- compromise
- lose the ego
- be honest
- Commissioners: Trust Artists
- Be vocal against Short-termism - and involve artists (and
community) earlier
- Don't assume 1
- recognise that people are experts in the places they live
and work 4
- it doesn't always have to be big 6
- the voice (build in space for the voice of the community)1
- practice active listening 2
- take responsibility 3
What has become clear since the event is that this is a much
bigger question than could be reasonably covered in one session, and that as
well as considering what the artists can do themselves within the contexts they
are working in, this question, of support for artists in precarious settings is
one that needs to include the organisations and funders that work to support
artists. Since the event I have spoken to a number of organisations about the
worrying artwash naming and shaming, and have found a sector which needs to
really look at this, in order to support artists in making better decisions in
who they work for, and how they work with often vulnerable communities in
development settings. This is important and needed work, and the naming and
shaming really does little to understand the precarious position of the artist
and the people they are working with. Much of the work done by artists, in my experience, is not
about being a buffer for developers, but is about visibility for those people
being priced out of an area by development, as is described in this article
about Bushwicks and Chinatown in New York City.
https://i-d.vice.com/en_gb/article/why-local-nyc-artists-are-fighting-artwashing
My intention is to
rally support around this area, and look to gain a better understanding of how
to support artists in these contexts, The A-N Assembly event was a great start,
but much more time is needed on this. Since the event, I have been speaking to a variety of people and organisations about this, and will be getting something together in response very soon.
Write up of full a-n Assembly Margate event here.
Image credits: Tony Jones, A-N, Rebecca Davies
Image credits: Tony Jones, A-N, Rebecca Davies
No comments:
Post a Comment