TAKE PART!
ISSUE 07 | 10.2016
Inhalt
Editorial Impressum #7 1 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Introduction Vorwort #7
2
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Introduction Einleitung – „TAKE PART! Partizipation von Kunst und Bildung aus denken“ 3 …………………………………………. Articles Intervenieren – Forschen – Vermitteln
9
……………………………………………………………………………………..
Articles “Infelicitous” Participatory Acts on the Neoliberal Stage 19 ………………………………………………………………….. Articles Wozu das Ganze?
30
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Articles Teilhabe am Wissen 39 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Articles Die Möglichkeit internationaler Partnerschaft
51
…………………………………………………………………………….
Articles Gestaltung als Forschung 69 ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Practice The Whole World in Zurich / Die ganze Welt in Zürich
82
……………………………………………………………………
Practice „Außer Sichtweite ganz nah“ 91 ……………………………………………………………………………………………. Practice Das Politische in sozialer Kunst
98
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Practice „Es geht darum, Möglichkeitsräume zu öffnen!“ 111 ………………………………………………………………………….. Practice Wie Wissen produzieren und Strukturen transformieren?
117
……………………………………………………………….
Practice Wenn Kunst von der Realität eingeholt wird 122 …………………………………………………………………………….. Practice „Es braucht öffentliche Räume, in denen Neues erdacht werden kann!“
127
…………………………………………………..
Practice Jenseits der Differenz 134 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Notes Salzburger Initiativen, die man im Blickfeld behalten sollte
145
…………………………………………………………………
Notes Performatives Lesen in Zeiten des Aufruhrs 147 ……………………………………………………………………………….. Notes „Strategien für Zwischenräume. Neue Formate des Ver_Lernens in der Migrationsgesellschaft“
149
…………………………..
Activities Salzburg – München – Zürich 152 ………………………………………………………………………………………….. Activities Kartenspielen – Auch eine Methode der emanzipatorischen Kunstvermittlung?!
164
……………………………………….
Activities Kunst und Kultur im Spannungsfeld von Kreativität und Vermittlung 173 …………………………………………………. Activities Amsterdam: Toleranz als Leitmotiv …?
175
………………………………………………………………………………….
Activities Veranstaltungsreihe W&K-Forum 177 ……………………………………………………………………………………… Activities Mein Platz im Drumherum
180
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Activities Gerold Tusch über die Keramik: Artists Talk mit Atelierbesuch 185 ………………………………………………………… Activities Artists Talk – eine Lehrveranstaltung der anderen ART
187
…………………………………………………………………
Recommended Gesundes Misstrauen, Neugier und Hunger auf Kultur 189 …………………………………………………………… Recommended Grada Kilombas Videoinstallation “While I Write”
192
………………………………………………………………..
Preview Preview 2016/17 195 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Activities Making Art – Taking Part!
197
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Editorial _
Impressum #7
p/art/icipate – Kultur aktiv gestalten // p/art/icipate – Producing culture activelyHerausgeber: Schwerpunkt Wissenschaft und Kunst, Universität Salzburg inKooperation mit der Universität Mozarteum, Programmbereich ZeitgenössischeKunst und Kulturelle Produktion / Program area Contemporary Arts & CulturalProductionwww.p-art-icipate.net7. Ausgabe Oktober 2016 // 7th Issue: October 2016ISSUE 7: „TAKE PART! Partizipation von Kunst und Bildung aus denken“Inhaltliche Koordination: Laila Huber und Elke Zobl in Zusammenarbeit mit VeronikaAqra und Elke SmodicsMitarbeit: Roswitha Gabriel (Lektorat), Anita Moser, Elisabeth Klaus, Marcel BleulerContent Management & Lektorat: Roswitha GabrielEnglisches Lektorat: Lisa RosenblattLayout: ger2Programmierung: roiders.atCopyrightDas Urheberrecht aller in p/art/icipate veröffentlichten Inhalte liegt bei denAutorInnen. Es gelten die vom Gesetz gewährten Rechte u.a. die Vervielfältigung fürden privaten Gebrauch sowie das Zitatrecht. Darüber hinaus ist die Nutzung fürnicht-kommerzielle, wissenschaftliche und pädagogische Zwecke sowie der Verweisauf p/art/icipate als externer Link ausdrücklich erwünscht. Trotz sorgfältigerinhaltlicher Kontrolle übernehmen wir keine Haftung für die Inhalte externer Seiten,die auf p/art/icipate verlinken.
Suzana Milevska
Articles _
“Infelicitous” Participatory Acts on the Neoliberal Stage
Participatory art’s promises and hopes for democratization of society
In an earlier text, “Participatory Art: A Paradigm Shift from Objects to Subjects”published in 2006, I addressed the paradigm shift from establishing relationsbetween art objects and audiences to establishing relations between subjects(Milevska 2006), (1) a shift that was also discussed under the notion of “relationalaesthetics” (Bourriaud 2002: 9). (1) It should be noted that although similar shiftstowards interaction between artists and audiences already took place in the 1960s,1970s, and 1980s, the term “participatory” focuses more directly on the subjectsinvolved (Fontaine 2012). (*2) In this text, apart from looking at different types of participatory art and what they promise, I address different social limitations thathinder contemporary participatory art projects from fulfilling their potential.
Revisiting the fulfillment of participatory art’s promises
Artists who initiate interactions with voluntary (and in some cases paid) participantsin a variety of events and actions in the art context or in the public realm havedeveloped different strategies. My aim in this text is to discuss the potentials andlimitations of such strategies for social change and democratization. While theemphasis in relational aesthetics still rested predominantly on the evaluation of theactive relationship between the audience and an artistic object (in contrast to thetraditionally conceived passive reception of art), more recent participatory practiceshave shifted the focus of art discourse in yet another direction and called for otherevaluation criteria. With the exception of artists who, although still listed as“relational,” use objects, such as ready-mades, for mediation of different concepts of participation, *(2) the newly proposed criteria do not necessarily link art productionto aesthetic enjoyment and art objects. (3)Although I still find the shift towards participation relevant, in the ten years since Ipublished my earlier text, the field of participatory art and the discourse on it hasdeveloped rapidly, and the overall influence of neoliberal politics on the cultural fieldhas also changed. Therefore, I argue that today it is necessary to revisit participatoryart and to reevaluate the extent to which it can and has fulfilled its main promises(Colouring in culture 2015). Two types of participatory art practices Many of the initial promises of participatory art and the high expectations connectedto it seem overrated today, for example, its aim to erase the clear-cut and hierarchicaldivision between artists (interpreted as experts and essential for the creation of thework) and audience members (interpreted as passive observers). Particularlyrelevant, but also difficult to evaluate is the aim of striving for democratic changes insociety. This claim is saturated with authoritarian governance practices perpetuatinginequality and hierarchies. Democratic changes were meant to be brought aboutthrough inclusion of diverse audiences previously not interested in art (the issue of “outreach”). However, such audiences’ lack of interest stems precisely from art’selitist and intimidating social construction, which can’t be overcome by individualprojects. Also difficult to evaluate is participatory projects’ aim of revealing social injustice within cultural, social, and political structures.In this respect, the question posed by Giorgio Agamben with regard to World War IIconcentration camps of what type of “juridical structure [is present] that such eventscould take place there?” (Agamben 1998: 166) (5) is among the key questions asked byartistic practices with reference to injustices present in contemporary society. Albeitthe question is merely rhetorical as artists hope to raise awareness of specific socialinjustices rather than bring about substantial changes. However, the question of whether art truly possesses such potential is currently more relevant than ever beforeand begs clearer articulation, as “participatory art” has become too general a term.Among the many different categories for characterizing participatory art practices,those suggested by the art market researcher Alan Brown based on different mediaand professional designations remain especially relevant: inventive, interpretive,curatorial, observational, ambient arts participation, and politically drivenparticipatory projects (Brown 2006). (*6) Another interpretation of participatoryart’s call for dismantling social hierarchies can be linked to Niklas Luhmann’s theoryof social systems, which focuses on questions of communication, the relationshipbetween power and trust, and the construction of truth within “art as a socialsystem.” *(4)However, the crucial distinction is between two different types of participatory artprojects: the first type, based on the various waves of artistic andcuratorial/institutional critique, (see Möntmann 2009: 155-161; (7) Alberro/Stimson2009; (8) Steyerl 2006 (*9)), is concerned with participation
within
the art systemand deals with the relationship between the a) art institution–audience, b) artist–artinstitution (museum, gallery), c) artist–curator, etc. I see this first branch of participatory art as closely linked to and instrumental for institutional-critique.Although still relevant, the limits of such art practices have already been pointed outby the common criticism that the outcome of institutional critique is reviving the artinstitutions, but does not lead to fundamental institutional change. *(5)Unfortunately, even though the main aims of participatory art stemmed from theneed to deconstruct existing hierarchies between “high” and “low” art and cultureand were therefore linked from the outset to institutional critique and other criticalpractices and discourses, it rarely manages to go beyond an individual-centeredartistic practice and does not overstep an aesthetic-centered authority although itstrives to become a means for expanding the art field’s projections, promises, andexpectations. *(6)The second type of participatory art practice deals with participation as a means forestablishing a more democratic society in general—its main prerogative is thereforeto foster more profound social and political changes that are not limited solely tochanges within the art system. This more ambitious kind of participatory art inducesthe need to reflect on participation in the more general socio-political context of contradictions in contemporary democratic societies. My main claim in the earliertext from 2006 was that rather than looking at participatory art merely in the contextof art history and curatorial practices, a perspective dominating art circles andliterature on art at the time, a wider social analysis that includes philosophical,cultural, and socio-political theories of democratization of art and its institutionalstructures would facilitate a better understanding of participatory art and itsdiscourse. The critical responses to some of the more recent art projects that haveclaimed to use relational and participatory strategies, voiced by their participants,other artists, and activist initiatives confirm the need to challenge elitist andhierarchical structures in the context of conceptually and politically defined critical art practices. *(7)This is not to say that all participatory art discourse is misconstrued, nor is it anattempt to criticize its emphasis on social and ethical values over aesthetic and formalcomponents. Art theories are not always capable of locating the gaps betweenparticipation’s promise in theory and its shortcomings in concrete art projects indifferent contexts. I am actually interested in the promises and hopes raised byestablishing certain unique relations with subjects in such projects, but it is notenough to locate them within the “laboratory conditions” of art galleries; instead, it isalso vital to reflect on these projects in relation to both the real life of theirparticipants and the general social context. Philosophical, political, and sociologicaltheories are currently appropriated mainly through post-conceptual, socially andpolitically engaged art, or through art activism. However, similar art discourses andpractices, such as community-based art projects, were produced by artists in the1960s and 1970s, for example by Stephen Willats, and anticipated contemporarytheory and practice. *(8)Participation is a demanding activation of multiple relations that are initiated anddirected by artists and often prompted by art institutions. These relations, however,often become objectified as they are limited to short-term projects and are subjectedto the pressures of producing outcomes and reaching out to audiences, as reflected innumbers, etc. This is also linked to the tensions stemming from collaborative artpractices, in particular regarding authorship and remuneration, which often createnew invisible hierarchies between initiators and participants based on professional orother differences. While inviting the audience to actively participate, artists offeringparticipatory projects create an interface that needs to be well-prepared in advance,and one that is highly contextualized within a specific social, cultural, and politicalenvironment.The shift of focus from the reception of art objects to the more demanding andcomplex relations among subjects (e.g., artists, collaborators, invited or accidentalparticipants, organizers, etc.) that are structured through the artistic procedures andstrategies is tied to neoliberal policies. It happens as a kind of enforced response of artpractice to a redefinition of the concept of community and the communitarian in theframe of neoliberal, multicultural policies and as a kind of follow-up to the socialdemands for inclusion. The shift focuses on marginalized groups of citizens who havebeen excluded mainly from their own social environment or from participation inpublic cultural life rather than from aesthetic objects.
Paradoxes and the production of new distinctions
I would like to point out a paradox: such a “participatory shift” in the artssimultaneously creates new hierarchies and differentiations, new fears and obstacles,and the political correctness principle governing such practices is often demotivatingfor artists who are not members of underprivileged or minority groups. *(9)Some of the artists who have been engaged with participatory art practices and haveinvolved underprivileged communities in their projects turn towards commercial andprofit-driven artistic practices and continue to produce objects and cultural artifactsproduced based on the previous collaborations. One of the reasons for this is thatcommercial galleries tend to ignore participatory art and art-for-social-changepractices, as such works are generally expensive to produce and difficult to presentand tend to sell at art fairs and on the art market what is easier to sell: artobjects—with the exception of those artists who work in these fields and have alreadybecome international stars and therefore possible “assets”. Paradoxically, by turningtowards underprivileged groups, artists profiled as “participatory” actually also play into the hands of the market. Ironically, this creates a vicious cycle, which, at thesame time recuperates the art market and perpetuates both the elitist non-for-profitand the commercial art system. In the case of participatory art these mechanisms of appropriation, recuperation and rejuvenation are, however, not easily recognizablebecause they are dictated by the rules and institutions of the political and economicsystems rather than by the art system and its institutions.The aims of having more open art institutions and involving the audience moreprofoundly in the process of artistic practice and production and fostering theirparticipation produces new distinctions and “elites” by inviting the audience tobecome directly involved at different levels, because at the same time, theparticipants are not given equal credit in the various stages of the process, such as thepresentation of results at future exhibitions, their participation in travelingexhibitions, or share in income from possible sales. The participation of audiences canlead to the development of more diversified art and cultural policies among curatorsand art administrators, and it can foster a greater awareness among the “elitist”museums and gallery audiences of the existence of “other” publics/participants.However, such “other” audiences often turn out to be difficult to control andmanipulate, and are frequently excluded from any possible recognition (e.g., in theend, they are merely recorded on a documentary video).
Promises and the failure of promises
“Free education” provided by participatory projects is one of the justifications forexpanding the program of educational museums and other art institutions. Apartfrom this positive aspect of participatory practices, they have also been the key modelfor perpetuating the use of free labor in the art industry, which led me elsewhere topropose a mandatory budgetary item in such projects that could be called a“participatory budget” (Milevska 2014). (*10) All this shows that the second type of participatory art is not necessarily more successful in terms of fulfillment of itspromise, dubbed “felicitous acts” by J. A. Austin in the context of his Speech ActTheory.According to Austin, the difference between what one says and what one doesdepends on the context and circumstances and hence the context can substantiallyaffect fulfillment of a promise. *(10) The second kind of participatory art is thus evenmore reliant on the socio-political context than the first. Such projects’ “success” isalso ever more resistant to a simple evaluation of their impact exactly due to thecontradictions between the artistic and social positions, when the stage is not atheater stage in Austin’s terms, but instead, the general political arena determinesthe art projects’ influences. Therefore, I consider it more challenging to focus on thepromises and the reasons for the failure of such promises in the second type of participatory art practices.It is important to state that participatory art practices’ problems in fulfilling thepromises of democracy and emancipation (in terms of calling for equality in terms of ethnicity, gender, class, race, sexuality, and disability) are directly linked to thecontext of the contemporary neoliberal society in which they operate. The artists’initial expectations may be leveled by caution and a self-critical approach, wherebythe impact of the projects is presented more realistically, but the rhetoric of manyparticipatory projects resonates with neoliberal political rhetoric. I would thereforelike to locate the main reason for the failure of such a systemic “mission impossible”within the inner contradictions of contemporary democratic societies rather than inthe organization or structure of such art projects. In whatever way participation is tobe discussed in the context of art, it always necessarily refers to a certain “we” and to a specific identification with a particular community wherein members of differentsub-groups (audience members, professional groups, homeless people, or children)become co-existing parts.One part of this “we” is the artist, curator, art institution, or even the state (in somepublic art projects) that supposedly
cares
for the invisible, marginalized, or neglected“other” as the counter-part of the very same “we.” The problem with this imaginary“we” is that it almost always exists for the period of the particular art event, with rareexamples where the artists create self-sustainable projects that continue even whenthey leave. Long term participatory projects that do not function only for the durationof the exhibitions, but are planned well in advance in terms of structure,organization, projected aims, and also secure funding for all project participants havemuch better chances of achieving their expected goals or declared promises.
Addressing the “we”: Democratization and neoliberalism
For me participatory art in general is related to the political theory of deliberative andparticipatory democracy and the inter-subjective philosophy of
“being singularplural”
as conceptualized by Jean-Luc Nancy, (11) as well as to Giorgio Agamben’swork on coming community (Agamben 1993). (11) Jean-Luc Nancy, for example,reminded us that the
aporia
of the “we” is actually the main aporia of intersubjectivity, and he points out that it is impossible to pin down a universal “we”that always consists of the same components. (12) I therefore propose the hypothesisthat when participation gives preference to the art institution and remains focused onthe art system—which I have identified as the first type of participatory project—, itcannot truly fulfill the promises that characterize the second type of participation,precisely because of the limited outreach of art and cultural institutions from theoutset, and the limited “we” that they address.Interestingly, the constantly newly created “we” contains different parts and counter-parts, but does not give any indication of what has happened to the previousparts/participants who become a certain inoperative community (Nancy 1991: 80-81).(12) For Nancy, however, community occurs exactly in situations of interruption,fragmentation, and suspension: “Community is made of interruption of singularities… Community is not the work of singular beings, nor can it claim them asits works…” (Nancy 1991: 31). (12) This interpretation of community as beingintrinsically inoperative and fragmentary helps us to understand the way in whichparticipatory art projects function or fail to function in practice, especially when theyare controlled by institutions. Similarly to Nancy, Agamben thinks of being-in-common as distinct from community (Agamben 1993: 87). (11)Participatory art projects aiming towards democratization could also be linked to theolder philosophical progressive assumptions proposed by John Dewey, mainly in hiscritique of education as an instrument of social change (Dewey 2001: 333-341). (*13) Itis no coincidence that many participatory art projects are run by the educationaldepartments of museums and other institutions, or are contextualized withinpedagogy and epistemology. The “participatory turn” and “educational turn” areoften interlinked through artistic and curatorial contemporary art projects engagingwith critical education and pedagogy, mostly based on the ideas of Ivan Ilich(
Deschooling Society
), Paulo Freire (
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Pedagogy of Hope
),Peter McLaren (
Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture, Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education
), and JacquesRanciere (
The Ignorant Schoolmaster
). *(13) Research and art projects by artists suchas Olafur Elliasson, Tanja Ostojić, Tania Bruguera, Ahmet Ögüt, Chto Delat, and PabloHelguera have indicated the pedagogical potential of participatory and socially focused art practices. (14)Applying elaborate ethical research principles already at work in the social sciencesand humanities may be helpful for artists in many respects—in appreciating thecommunities and the subjects whom they address with their projects, in creatingprojects that have the social relevance that they aim for in the first place, inunderstanding the tensions and conflicts between the spectacle of representation of the communities in directed performances and the fulfillment of the hopes to bringabout social change (Brigstocke 2011; (14) Noorani/Blencowe/Brigstocke 2013; (15)Billington et.al. 2015 (16)). Already in the late 1980s Raymond Williams offered a veryambivalent definition of democratic culture addressing the contradictions andcontroversies surrounding culture as a resource of hope and as a means to fosterdemocracy (Williams 1989: 3-18). (17)Participatory art projects can easily become caught within a vicious cycle of criticismthat does not take into account any positive aspects or outcomes, because they oftenend before making any proposals for self-sustainable participation or providing anymodels that would secure the desired and promised social effects. However, most of these projects are still welcomed by society, since mild, social critique that eventuallyrecuperates the institutions critiqued and most likely perpetuates the status quo ispreferred to a more direct political critique of social inequality and injustice.Authors such as Jodi Dean and Slavoj Žižek have pointed out the fundamentalcontradictions between democracy and neoliberal social developments. For example,Dean argued that while the left attempted to develop and defend a collective vision of equality and solidarity, the ascendance of “communicative capitalism,” consumerism-driven gridlocks, privileging of self over group interests, and the embrace of thelanguage of victimization have constantly undermined such attempts (see Dean2009). (18) Žižek went so far as to announce the separation of the two: “the eternalmarriage between capitalism and democracy has ended” (Dutent 2013). (19)However, this separation has not been politically acknowledged despite the fact thatit has become more obvious in the wake of recent economic and political scandals,such as the Panama Papers, which have exposed the close link between democraticand neoliberal powers. It is currently extremely difficult to make a clear distinctionbetween democratic norms and values and right-wing politics, and it becomesespecially difficult to define and justify when it comes to the analysis of governingwhen financial capital and philanthropy are the main resources for supportingpolitically engaged and participatory art projects.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 activistorganizations 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 toaffirmative action in the realms of art, culture, and education. Participatory art oftenfocuses on issues such as social inclusion of different communities andindividuals—with reference to ethnicity, gender, race, and class—in all social strata.Participatory art projects often use means that express values similar to politicalcorrectness, when they critique privileges, exploitation, and discrimination in orderto overcome inequality. *(15)Another radical aim of some participatory arts projects is to fundamentally changesociety. Art, then, is understood as an “imperative,” *(16) or a fetishization: as a callfor revolution, which means that its successes or failures are measured against theprojects’ 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 thatsuch 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 onehand, one could not agree more that participatory art projects establish a new andmore productive context for such entanglements with neoliberal politics and thatthey open up new potentialities for greater social impact of contemporary artpractices in general. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that by organizingparticipatory art projects, art institutions often compensate for the lack of establishing and developing a profound and long-term relationship with theiraudiences who have become mere numbers and statistics required for furtherfunding applications. The distinction between “audience” and “participants” may alsovery well be simply an artificial distinction that leaves the institution with control todefine the terms and “limits” of participation.Furthermore, through a subtle transfer of their programming to artists, institutionscan exploit participatory art as a kind of “liability reserve,” as along with theassignment, they also transfer their social responsibilities. To conclude, it is notpossible to discuss the paradigm shift from objects to subjects in participatory art inisolation from the general social context and without taking into consideration allinvolved parties (governmental policies, economic changes, institutionalinterdependence of cultural policy decision makers with real politics, localgovernance deliberation, etc.). The experiences of Brazil’s Porto Alegre participatorybudgeting, which is the main financial instrument of the community’s self-sustainable policy, *(17) or the art informed by the Occupy movements show that artthat takes social context into account, can lend its own means to such movements.*(18)
Conclusion
To state it quite bluntly, the general socio-political and economic context in which artis produced and practiced inevitably over-writes participatory art’s ambitious goals.This calls for further distinctions to be made among participatory art projects of thesecond type that rely on different, concrete historical, cultural, and socio-politicalcontexts and promise a move towards democratization. These projects also inducehope for a more profound discussion of how different participatory artists positionthemselves in the general social and political contexts on the one hand and of therelevance of art institutions’ responsibility on the other. It is difficult to imagine andexpect any social changes prompted by artistic projects in the long run withoutsupport from both the institutions where the projects are organized and thecommunities for whose empowerment such projects were conceptualized andinitiated in the first place. *(19)However, although theoretical and academic research may help to analyze theadvantages and obstacles regarding the social relevance and impact of participatoryart projects, any prescriptive propositions are inadequate without concretereferences to particular contexts and projects. *(20) Even though neo-liberalistcultural policies currently prevail in most European countries, *(21) the gap betweenpromise and delivery remains wide and predictable, given the stringent neoliberalpolicies that appropriate participatory art and manipulate its aims to gain political“points,” while interpreting its failures as “infelicitous” acts and justification for themost blatant populist ideology.
//Literaturnachweise
*1
Bourriaud Nicolas (2002): Relational Aesthetics. Paris: Les Presse Du Reel. 9.
*2
Fontaine, Claire (2012): “Giving shape to painful things” (Interview). In: Fontaine, Claire/Culp, Andrew / Crano, Ricky: Radical Philosophy, 175 (Sep/Oct 2012). /https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/interview/claire-fontaine. (September 15, 2015)
*3
Milevska, Suzana (2006): Participatory Art: A Paradigm Shift from Objects to Subjects. In: springerin, volume 12/2, 2006: 18-23. http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1761&lang=en (April 25, 2006).
*4
O. V.: Socially engaged art—an ‘arts’ perspective. In: Colouring in culture,https://colouringinculture.wordpress.com/tag/kester/?blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog. (April 2, 2015)
*5
Agamben, Giorgio (1998): Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press, 166.
*6
Brown, Alan (2006): The Five Modes of Arts Participation.http://www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/main/005967.php. January 31, 2006.
*7
Möntmann, Nina: The Rise and Fall of New Institutionalism: Perspectives on a Possible Future. In: Raunig, Gerald/ Ray, Gene (Eds.): Art and Contemporary Critical Practice: Reinventing Institutional Critique. London: Mayfly, 155–161.
*8
Alberro, Alexander and Stimson, Blake (Eds.) (2009): Institutional Critique: An Anthology of Artists’ Writings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
*9
Steyerl, Hito (2006): The Institution of Critique. In: eipcp, european institute for progressive cultural policies:transversal, do you remember institutional critique?, 01.2006,http://eipcp.net/transversal/0106/steyerl/en/base_edit.
*10
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 fu r Volkskunde http://www.schnitt.org/critical-management/criticalmanagementincurating/
*11
Agamben, Giorgio (1993): The Coming Community. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press.
*12
Nancy, Jean-Luc (1991): The Inoperative Community, ed. by Peter Connor. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press, 80-81.
*13
Dewey, John (2001): Education and Social Change. In: Schultz, Fred (ed.): SOURCES, Notable Selections in Education(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin, 333–341.
*14
Brigstocke, Julian: Review Three: Aesthetics, Authority and the Performance of Community. In: Authority Research Network, School of Geography, Politics & Sociology, Newcastle University. October 1, 2011http://www.authorityresearch.net/uploads/8/9/4/1/8941936/review_3_-_aesthetics_authority_and_the_performance_of_community.dot. (April 2, 2015)
*15
Noorani, Tehseen/Blencowe, Claire/Brigstocke, Julian (2013): Problems of Participation: Reflections on Authority,Democracy, and the Struggle for Common Life, eds., Lewes, UK: ARN Press.
*16
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)
*17
Williams, Raymond (1989): Culture is Ordinary. In: Williams, Raymond: Resources of Hope: Culture, democracy,socialism, ed. by R Gable., London: Verso, 3–18.
*18
Dean, Jodi (2009): Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
*19
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)
*20
Clements, Paul (2011): The Recuperation of Participatory Art Practices In: International Journal of Art and Design Education, 30.1, 18-30.
*21
Penny, Laurie (2011): Protest by consensus: Laurie Penny on Madrid’s Occupy. In: New Statesman, October 16, 2011
ttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/10/spain-movement-square-world. (December 25, 2015)
*22
Milevska, Suzana (2015): Auf der neoliberalen Bühne: Die uneingelösten Versprechen und Hoffnungenpartizipatorischer 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.
*23
Lind, Maria (2004): Actualisation of Space: The Case of Oda Projesi. www.republicart.net/disc/aap/lind01_en.htm.(August 15, 2006)
*24
Bishop, Claire (2006): The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents. In: Artforum, February 2006, vol. XLVI, no.6, pp. 178–183.
*25
Bishop, Claire (ed.) (2006): Participation Documents of Contemporary Art, ed. London: Whitechapel/Cambridge: MIT Press.
*26
Goldenberg, David (2012): A short history of Post Autonomy. In: The Scenarios of Post Autonomy. The Studio: GlendaCinquegrana, September 19 – October 8, 2012,https://www.academia.edu/12205149/A_short_history_of_Post_Autonomy. (December 26, 2015)
*27
Goldenberg, David / Reed, Patricia (2008): What is participatory practice? In: Fillip 8, Fall 2008.http://fillip.ca/content/what-is-a-participatory-practice. (December 23, 2015)
*28
Sholette, Gregory (2016): Merciless Aesthetic: Activist Art as the Return of Institutional Critique. A Response to BorisGroys. 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.
*29
Kimball, Whitney (2013): Should Art Volunteers Be Paid? Some Suzanne Lacy Volunteers Say Yes,. In: art f city October 18, 2013. http://artfcity.com/2013/10/18/should-volunteers-be-paid-all-the-time-suzanne-lacy-volunteers-think-yes/
*30
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/
*31
Graham Janna/Vass Nicolas (2014): Intervention / Art. In: p/art/icipate—Kultur aktiv gestalten # 05.http://www.p-art-icipate.net/cms/intervention-art/
*32
Nagel, Thomas (1979): The policy of preference. In The Mortal Questions, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,91–105.
*33
Austin, John A. (1975): How to Do Things with Words, eds. J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 100.
*34
Felman, Shoshana (2002): The Scandal of the Speaking Body Don Juan with J. L. Austin, or Seduction in Two Languages, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
*35
Nancy, Jean-Luc (2000): Being Singular Plural. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, , p. 13.
*36
Vidokle, Anton: Notes for an Art School-Exhibition as School in a Divided City,http://byanalogy.org/texts/02%20-%20Anton%20Vidokle%20-%20Exhibition%20as%20School%20in%20a%20Divided%20City.pdf
*37
Ögüt, Ahmet (2012): Silent University. http://thesilentuniversity.org .
*38
Helguera, Pablo (2011): Education for Socially Engaged Art: A Materials and Techniques Handbook, Jorge Pinto Books Inc.
*39
Zinggl, Wolfgang / (2001): WochenKlausur: Sociopolitical Activism in Art. Wien: Springer.
*40
Raunig, Gerald (2015): DIVIDIUM. Vienna: transversal texts, p. 17.
*41
UNESCO—MOST Clearing House Best Practices Database (n.d.): The Experience of the Participative Budget in Porto Alegre Brazil, inhttp://www.unesco.org/most/southa13.htm.
*42
The Hague Academy for local governance (2014): Fiscal Decentralisation and Local Finance, inhttp://thehagueacademy.com/blog/2014/04/fiscal-decentralisation-local-finance/?gclid=CjwKEAjw0KK4BRDCiKHD5 Ny8pHESJACLE620AhAIZDM9hdVhA8goXOfLwZk3aKPsK2zKbgKBYXEN8BoCfbvw_wcB
*43
V&A Shop:http://www.vandashop.com/Disobedient-Objects-Exhibition/b/4930353031.
*44
Trends Watch 2016:http://www.aam-us.org/resources/center-for-the-future-of-museums/projects-and-reports/trendswatch/trendswatch2016;http://www.aam-us.org/resources/center-for-the-future-of-museums/projects-and-reports/trendswatch
*45
Voon, Claire: Report Advises Museums on How to Be More Inclusive and Maximize Happiness. In: hyperallergic, March 10, 2016
p articipate
KULTUR AKTIVGESTALTENTAKE PART!
Seite 28
//Schwerpunkt Wissenschaft&Kunst, Universität Salzburg in Kooperation mit der Universität Mozarteum//Focus area Science&Art, University of Salzburg in cooperation with University Mozarteum//bergstr. 12 //5020 salzburg//T+43(0)662/8044-2383 // w-k.sbg.ac.at/conart
http://hyperallergic.com/281215/report-advises-museums-on-how-to-be-more-inclusive-and-maximize-happiness/?ref =featured. (April 10, 2016)
*46
MAPSI—Managing Art Projects with Societal Impact: http://www.mapsi.eu/
//Fussnoten
- 1
This text is actually a longer version of the more recent article: Milevska (2015). - 2
For example, the use of food in Rirkrit Tiravanija’s projects presented in art institutions could be interpreted as bothrelational 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 basedart” resonate with participatory art. For more recent debates on participatory art practices and theories, see: Lind 2004; Bishop 2006; Bishop (ed.) 2006. - 4
Here I want to acknowledge my gratitude to the artist David Goldenberg for his generous revision suggestions,comments, and text recommendations including: Goldenberg 2012, Goldenberg/Reed 2008. - 5
In his recently published article, Gregory Sholette had argued that activist art returns as a new and politically moreeffective institutional critique, an argument that could also be linked with several more recent participatory practicesstriving 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 projectscentered around Roma issues) did not have a long-term impact: although there were many art projects financed withthe EU funds, and even two Roma Pavilions curated at the Venice Biennial, Roma artists have yet to be included in anymajor international art Exhibition. - 7
For example, some artists, activist initiatives, and collectives (such asWAGE , 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: herproject Between the Door and the Street at the Brooklyn Museum co-organized by Creative Time was targeted in anopen 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. - 8
However, exactly his practice recently turned appealing and easily recuperated by institutions although his historicsignificance cannot be undermined. - 9
Particularly relevant for this discussion is Thomas Nagel’s commentary on the negative effects of affirmative actionand preferential policies favoring students from underprivileged backgrounds in the U.S. educational system. See Nagel 1979: 91–105. - 10
See Austin 1975: 100. For a more precise analysis of the failure behind all speech acts, e.g., a promise uttered from aperforming stage, see Shoshana Felmann’s text on Molière’s Don Juan and his character’s double speech: Felman 2002. - 11
Nancy’s concept of being is always already being with. According to him, being always entails with as an inevitableconjunction that links different singularities. See: Nancy 2000: 13. - 12
He refers to the problem that, at this moment, we cannot truly say “we,” that we have forgotten the importance of being-together, being-in-common, and belonging and that we live without relations (Nancy 2000: 75). - 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 Russiancollective 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 SilentUniversity, (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 toparticipatory art are not easy to follow, analyze, or evaluate, since they are often of small scale, locally produced andpresented in a low-key way (e.g., the Berlin based NGBK, or the Vienna based collective WOCHENKLAUSUR, see
p articipate
KULTUR AKTIVGESTALTENTAKE PART!
Seite 29
//Schwerpunkt Wissenschaft&Kunst, Universität Salzburg in Kooperation mit der Universität Mozarteum//Focus area Science&Art, University of Salzburg in cooperation with University Mozarteum//bergstr. 12 //5020 salzburg//T+43(0)662/8044-2383 // w-k.sbg.ac.at/conart - 16
Or “Imperative der Involvierung” as coined by Raunig 2015: 17. - 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 evenbecame a topic of an academic course at the Hague Academy for Local Governance, see: The Hague Academy for LocalGovernance 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 forpurchase in the museum’s shop, as usual, thus emphasizing the major contradictions between the spaces of museumsand 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 TheCenter for the Future of Museums (CFM), part of the American Alliance of Museums, proposed are different global trends that museumsshould 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 thequestion of values” at the Valand Academy during my guest lecture that preceded and was closely linked to thispaper. Gothenburg, March 18, 2016. - 21
For example, one of the EU funded Life Learning Projects MAPSI claimed to provide specialization in the managementof artistic projects with societal impact. Such a very ambitious aim seems problematic from the outset, preciselybecause 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 realisticallyachievable impact, when taking into account the complexity of each local context and the project’s limited durationand sustainability
