>Page 6

„Infelicitous“ Participatory Acts on the Neoliberal Stage

Participatory art’s promises and hopes for democratization of society

The second type of participatory art often leads artists to engage in social activism, and to collaborate and show solidarity with existing and newly established activist organizations in order to overcome the paradox of democracy in neoliberal times (Clements 2011: 18-30). (*20) Solidarity and collaboration between artists and non-professional community members may overturn fears of negative responses to affirmative action in the realms of art, culture, and education. Participatory art often focuses on issues such as social inclusion of different communities and individuals—with reference to ethnicity, gender, race, and class—in all social strata. Participatory art projects often use means that express values similar to political correctness, when they critique privileges, exploitation, and discrimination in order to overcome inequality.*15 *(15)

Another radical aim of some participatory arts projects is to fundamentally change society. Art, then, is understood as an “imperative,”*16 *(16) or a fetishization: as a call for revolution, which means that its successes or failures are measured against the projects’ revolutionary prerogatives (Penny 2011). (*21) The interpretation of art as an agency meant to overcome the main social and ideological obstacles outside of democratic systems has been heavily critiqued. But the accusation and reproach that such a notion imposes excessive expectations on the social impact of art activists’ projects is made from a safe and privileged position on the part of critics. On the one hand, one could not agree more that participatory art projects establish a new and more productive context for such entanglements with neoliberal politics and that they open up new potentialities for greater social impact of contemporary art practices in general. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that by organizing participatory art projects, art institutions often compensate for the lack of establishing and developing a profound and long-term relationship with their audiences who have become mere numbers and statistics required for further funding applications. The distinction between “audience” and “participants” may also very well be simply an artificial distinction that leaves the institution with control to define the terms and “limits” of participation.

Furthermore, through a subtle transfer of their programming to artists, institutions can exploit participatory art as a kind of “liability reserve,” as along with the assignment, they also transfer their social responsibilities. To conclude, it is not possible to discuss the paradigm shift from objects to subjects in participatory art in isolation from the general social context and without taking into consideration all involved parties (governmental policies, economic changes, institutional interdependence of cultural policy decision makers with real politics, local governance deliberation, etc.). The experiences of Brazil’s Porto Alegre participatory budgeting, which is the main financial instrument of the community’s self-sustainable policy,*17 *(17) or the art informed by the Occupy movements show that art that takes social context into account, can lend its own means to such movements.*18 *(18)

Conclusion

To state it quite bluntly, the general socio-political and economic context in which art is produced and practiced inevitably over-writes participatory art’s ambitious goals. This calls for further distinctions to be made among participatory art projects of the second type that rely on different, concrete historical, cultural, and socio-political contexts and promise a move towards democratization. These projects also induce hope for a more profound discussion of how different participatory artists position themselves in the general social and political contexts on the one hand and of the relevance of art institutions’ responsibility on the other. It is difficult to imagine and expect any social changes prompted by artistic projects in the long run without support from both the institutions where the projects are organized and the communities for whose empowerment such projects were conceptualized and initiated in the first place.*19 *(19)

However, although theoretical and academic research may help to analyze the advantages and obstacles regarding the social relevance and impact of participatory art projects, any prescriptive propositions are inadequate without concrete references to particular contexts and projects.*20 *(20) Even though neo-liberalist cultural policies currently prevail in most European countries,*21 *(21) the gap between promise and delivery remains wide and predictable, given the stringent neoliberal policies that appropriate participatory art and manipulate its aims to gain political “points,” while interpreting its failures as “infelicitous” acts and justification for the most blatant populist ideology.

Acknowledgements:

I would like to express my gratitude to Elisabeth Klaus, Anita Moser and Marcel Bleuler for their constructive feedback and comments, as well as Lisa Rosenblatt for proofreading.

<<zur vorherigen Seite alle anzeigen

Milevska, Suzana (2014): Participatory Budgeting.Presentation at Critical Management in Curating, December 9–10, 2014, , Vienna, schnittpunkt ausstellungstheorie & praxis www.schnitt.org in co-operation with the Österreichisches Museum für Volkskunde http://www.schnitt.org/critical-management/criticalmanagementincurating/

Brigstocke, Julian: Review Three: Aesthetics, Authority and the Performance of Community. In: Authority Research Network, School of Geography, Politics & Sociology, Newcastle University. October 1, 2011 http://www.authorityresearch.net/uploads/8/9/4/1/8941936/review_3_-_aesthetics_authority_and_the_performance_of_community.dot. (April 2, 2015)

Billington Josie/Fyfe, Hamish/Milling, Jane/Schaefer, Kerrie: Connected Communities: Participatory Arts and Well-being Past and Present Practices. http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/project-reports-and-reviews/connected-communities/participatory-arts-and-well-being/. (December 25, 2015)

Dutent, Nicolas: The eternal marriage between capitalism and democracy has ended, Interview with Slavoj Žižek, trans. by Harry Cross. In: L’Humanité (English edition), September 2, 2013. http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article2332. (April 2, 2015)

Milevska, Suzana (2015): Auf der neoliberalen Bühne: Die uneingelösten Versprechen und Hoffnungen partizipatorischer Kunst für die Demokratisierung der Gesellschaft. In: BILDPUNKT Herbst 2015. http://www.igbildendekunst.at/de/bildpunkt/bildpunkt-2015/demokratie-im-praesens/auf-der-neoliberalen-buehne.htm.

Sholette, Gregory (2016): Merciless Aesthetic: Activist Art as the Return of Institutional Critique. A Response to Boris Groys. In: FIELD A Journal of Socially Engaged Criticism. Issue 4/Spring, 2016. http://field-journal.com/issue-4/merciless-aesthetic-activist-art-as-the-return-of-institutional-critique-a-response-to-boris-groys.

Bocar, Leina et.al. (2013): Open Letter to Suzanne Lacy, Nato Thompson, Catherine J. Morris, Brooklyn Museum, Creative Time in: http://bureaux.petitemort.org/2013/10/open-letter-to-suzanne-lacy-nato-thompson-catherine-j-morris-brooklyn-museum-creative-time/

Voon, Claire: Report Advises Museums on How to Be More Inclusive and Maximize Happiness. In: hyperallergic, March 10, 2016, http://hyperallergic.com/281215/report-advises-museums-on-how-to-be-more-inclusive-and-maximize-happiness/?ref=featured. (April 10, 2016)

* 2

For example, the use of food in Rirkrit Tiravanija’s projects presented in art institutions could be interpreted as both relational and participatory, making a clear cut distinction between these terms difficult, although his project The Earth (1998) with Kamin Letchaiprasert, imagined as a self-sustainable environment in Thailand (near Sanpathong) links Tiravanija’s work more obviously to participatory art.

* 3

The older discussions dealing with the terms as “new genre public art” (coined by Susanne Lacy) or “community based art” resonate with participatory art. For more recent debates on participatory art practices and theories, see: Lind 2004; Bishop 2006; Bishop (ed.) 2006.

* 5

In his recently published article, Gregory Sholette had argued that activist art returns as a new and politically more effective institutional critique, an argument that could also be linked with several more recent participatory practices striving towards institutional critique. See Sholette 2016.

* 6

For example, most projects that dealt with issues related to the condition of Roma in Europe during the Decade of Roma Inclusion (an official instrument of EU that focused from 2005 to 2015 on supporting art and cultural projects centered around Roma issues) did not have a long-term impact: although there were many art projects financed with the EU funds, and even two Roma Pavilions curated at the Venice Biennial, Roma artists have yet to be included in any major international art Exhibition.

* 7

For example, some artists, activist initiatives, and collectives (such as WAGE, Precarious Workers Brigade, ArtLeaks) have scrutinized and critically evaluated participatory art projects for their inconsistent labor policies. The case of the feminist artist Susan Lacy is one of the most contradictory since she was one of the pioneers of such practices: her project Between the Door and the Street at the Brooklyn Museum co-organized by Creative Time was targeted in an open letter from the participants (Bocar et.al. 2013) and in a text (Kimball 2013).

Another example of similar critique was when Yvonne Rainer criticized Marina Abramović for her performance at a MOCA gala fundraiser in an open letter sent to the director of the institution and the artist; see Graham/Vass 2014.

* 9

Particularly relevant for this discussion is Thomas Nagel’s commentary on the negative effects of affirmative action and preferential policies favoring students from underprivileged backgrounds in the U.S. educational system. See Nagel 1979: 91–105.

* 13

Future Academy (2002–2007), Clementine Deliss, Edinburgh College of Art (eca), Academy (2006), Charles Esche/Irit Rogoff, Vanabbe Museum, Radical Education (2006–2014), Bojana Piškur, Moderna Galerija, Ljubljana, Deschooling Classroom (2011–2013), TkH/Kontrapunkt.

* 14

In the last decade we’ve seen the rise of such education-focused participatory art projects, e.g., Tanja Ostojić, Office for Integration-Language Lessons (2002), The School of Engaged Art, Bertolt Brecht’s “Lehrstücke” inspired Russian collective Chto Delat, Anton Vidokle’s Unitednationplaza, Berlin (after the cancelation of the European Biennial Manifesta 6, 2006, Nicosia/Cyprus), see: Vidokle (n.d.); most of the long-term projects by Tania Bruguera (e.g., Immigrant Movement International, conceptualized in 2006, implemented between 2010–2015); Ahmet Ögüt’s Silent University, (2012–); and the instruction works and books by Pablo Helguera, e.g. Helguera 2011.

* 15

The continuous efforts and work strategies of artists, groups, and collectives that dedicated their practice to participatory art are not easy to follow, analyze, or evaluate, since they are often of small scale, locally produced and presented in a low-key way (e.g., the Berlin based NGBK, or the Vienna based collective WOCHENKLAUSUR, see Zinggl/Barber 2001).

* 17

For more information on the structure of the participative budget as an example of urban creative self-governance in Porto Alegre, Brazil, see: UNESCO – MOST Clearing House Best Practices Database (n.d.), and how this example even became a topic of an academic course at the Hague Academy for Local Governance, see: The Hague Academy for Local Governance 2014.

* 18

For example, the exhibition Disobedient Objects that was held at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (July 26, 2014–February 1, 2015) addressed different forms of collaboration between artists and grass-root activist movements, but nevertheless, the “disobedient” art objects turned souvenirs, such as Suffragettes’ teapots, were available for purchase in the museum’s shop, as usual, thus emphasizing the major contradictions between the spaces of museums and barricades. See: V&A Shop (http://www.vandashop.com/Disobedient-Objects-Exhibition/b/4930353031).

* 19

In the 2016 issue of Trends Watch, the website publishing the annual reports of The Center for the Future of Museums (CFM), part of the American Alliance of Museums, proposed are different global trends that museums should consider in order to move forward to better respond to society’s needs. See also Voon 2016.

* 20

For conceiving this argument, I am grateful to Mick Wilson and the students of his course “Art, the market and the question of values” at the Valand Academy during my guest lecture that preceded and was closely linked to this paper. Gothenburg, March 18, 2016.

* 21

For example, one of the EU funded Life Learning Projects MAPSI claimed to provide specialization in the management of artistic projects with societal impact. Such a very ambitious aim seems problematic from the outset, precisely because the project’s aims of “create[ing] an international network focusing on educating cultural managers and facilitators to manage and mediate artistic and cultural projects with societal impact” exceed any realistically achievable impact, when taking into account the complexity of each local context and the project’s limited duration and sustainability.

Suzana Milevska ( 2016): „Infelicitous“ Participatory Acts on the Neoliberal Stage. Participatory art’s promises and hopes for democratization of society. In: p/art/icipate – Kultur aktiv gestalten # 07 , https://www.p-art-icipate.net/infelicitous-participatory-acts-on-the-neoliberal-stage/

Erstellt am 06.Okt 2016

Artikel drucken

Download PDF

Literaturverzeichnis *X Zitiervorschlag

Suzana Milevska

Suzana Milevska is an independent curator and theorist of art and culture based in Skopje, Macedonia.Her projects focus on postcolonial critique of identity politics and the hegemonic power regimes of representation at the intersection of gender, ethnicity, race and sexuality. She was a Fulbright Senior Research Scholar and has a Ph.D. in Visual Cultures from Goldsmiths College London. In 2010 she published the book Gender Difference in the Balkans and edited the book The Renaming Machine: The Book. She was the Endowed Professor for History of Central and South Eastern European Art Histories at the Academy of Fine Art in Vienna and a visiting professor at the Visual Culture Unit – Technical University Vienna (2013-15).

Download

Topics

General

„Infelicitous“ Participatory Acts on the Neoliberal Stage

Conclusion