#1
My friend Jen Rhoads, The "S" of the MOST, shared some writing with me about her experiences in the Social Practices program at CCA during the last year. During critiques with other students at the college who are studying in more traditional disciplines, she says her fellow students are often either not sure whether her work is "art," or say they don't have anything to say about her work because they're not sure how to judge its qualities.
Jen has since done some writing regarding Social Practice work that I'd like to share below. I think what I see happening is that in addition to creating her work, she is also discovering ways to create a framework in which to discuss it. I haven't really taken in this writing completely, but I keep coming back to it as something that posits helpful questions, and helpful descriptions. I'll be interested to see how my thinking about this changes over time.
-
Social Practice: A field of research, relationships and action related to but not defined by the “art world”. This field is in process of defining itself and therefore is currently “under construction”. Aspects of this field include people contributing to the remaking, relooking and reperforming of relationship utilizing both individual and group dynamics as a primary source of it’s structure. Lateral and interconnected modes of operation are primary to linear or historical development and in this way it is a currently unbounded practice. An unknown percentage of “social practioners” define themselves as artists but it is probably more useful to describe this work as being done by creative people and groups interested in highlighting or impacting how people, groups of people or societies engage in relationship. Content and scope of this work is as wide and varied any field of research or practice (think “science” or “writing” or “spirituality”). Criticism of this field is often around the difficulties evaluating or talking about these actions or events in a formal manner. The following questions are suggested entry points (gleaned from conversation between Nato Thompson and LeisureArts):
Who is this for?
What does it do?
In what manner does it operate in a social structure?
What new generative social possibilities do these activities create?
How do they interface with broad political and philosophical themes?
Are they fun?
Posts
1 comment:
Your friend's comment about labeling ourselves as an artist is one that I have thought about a lot as well. In many ways, this type of work has developed from modes of art that came from the 60's. Many of these, of course, were reactions to modern art. It is interesting to note that while much of what we do either ignores the aesthetic drive or it doesn't concern itself with any previous "rules for art," it is deeply rooted in art theory...
And yet the modernist perspective, is so ingrained in artists and much of our culture that there doesn't seem to be any way for them to handle this type of work (I am cautious of using the word "art," and usually substitute it for "work"). It will be interesting to see this work move from reactionary and raw to a more institutionalized movement.
Post a Comment