While I do understand how social practice art comes from a good place and is intended to help different communities, but I find when reading the articles there is a note of hypocrasy and condescention in this art form. The articles also bring to attention the fact that there are more useful and helpful ways that the funding can provide for the community rather than what appears to be using the community to prove a point. Nevertheless the readings left me with a few questions: Are these artists coming from a place of hypocrasy and condescention? Are there better ways to help communities in need? Are these projects art or simply activism?
Addressing the first question, Are these artists coming from a place of hypocrasy and condescention? I would say that the artists may not intend the art to be so but it certaintly comes off that way. For example, the Gramschi Monument, while providing a place for community, was based around a Marxist political theorist. The community that he was serving, most likely had no idea who Gramschi is. By making this project to help the community based off of someone they know nothing about, to me at least seems condescending, and it would have been more meaningful if the monument was based off of someone important to the community or had something to do with the project like a community activist. The issue of whether the communities could be served better was addressed by the articles in many ways. At one point the article states "As agents of change, social-practice projects can seem wanting: the scale is often small, the works are temporary, and success may depend on the charisma of a single artist." (How the Art of Social Practice is Changing the World, One Row House at a Time). I think that this points to one of the major issues with social practice art, it usually gives temporary change and have little far reaching effects. Another issue that was brought up was “What if instead of building the Gramsci Monument, Hirschhorn had proposed building the Gramsci Charter School? . . . Far-fetched, I know, but one of the many possible projects that might have resulted in a deeper collaboration between Hirschhorn and the residents of the Forest Houses" (How the Art of Social Practice is Changing the World, One Row House at a Time). I have to agree that sometimes there are better ways to help the effected community, that involves them and provides lasting change. One idea inadvertantly brought up by the second article inadvertantly came from this quote: "In Detroit a contemporary-art museum is completing a monument to an influential artist that will not feature his work but will instead provide food, haircuts, education programs and other social services to the general public" (Outside the Citadel). Here the project while sounding helpful and impactful for the community, it does not sound like art. Rather it sounds like a project by a local group or church to help the community. What about this project was art? From the way I see it there is nothing inherently artistic or creative about this project. It is a kind action, but I would not say it is art.
3 Comments
Marina
3/25/2019 07:11:45 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion on the difference between simple social practice and art, especially after the statement by Kristina van Dyke about art being elastic, but it not necessarily fitting certain institutions. Like you mentioned, social practice is good in nature, but if there is nothing inherently aesthetic about it--and I use this word in a general definition that visual art should fit certain criteria like form or movement, etc-- then it should not be considered art, even if it was "created" by an artist. You also mentioned how these artists making social practice art are also condescending in making their work, and I agree to some extent. It is somewhat true in the Gramsci Monument's title and inspiration, but the content behind the art extends towards inspiring and supporting the community through workshops, performances, and talks. These things, even if the community does not necessarily know who Gramsci was, still "helps" the community in some ways. Although, I do agree with your statement that the message behind the monument may have been more meaningful if the artist chose a figure more relevant or known to the community, but that is significantly harder for an artist from outside of the community, and may not necessarily fit their message. And often, this message is exactly what makes their art, art.
Reply
Eileen Morley
3/26/2019 06:37:54 pm
I knew something was off for me in Hirschhorn's Gramsci Monument, but I couldn't quite place it. You stated it perfectly! There are elements of condescension, whether intended or not. He was an outsider bringing outside ideals and an outside 'monument' that, while may have been fun in the month(s?) it was up, was then taken away from the community. And while it is fine to question the aesthetics of art and push boundaries, it is another to haphazardly throw together a structure out of scarp wood and duck tape and call it 'art'. Social practice art belongs in a different category.
Reply
Jacqueline Yu
3/27/2019 04:56:57 pm
Very interesting take! I do agree that some social practice art is condescending. The Gramsci Monument, in particular, is a shining example of that condescension. I did not think about this prior to reading your article, and I am so glad that you brought this to my attention. I understand that these artists could be helping the community in a better more permanent way, but I think how they are contributing is valid to the artistic idea and valid in general. The temporary nature of social practice art contributes to the artistic quality of these works, it is sensational because it is ephemeral. Not to mention, you could always argue that people should be doing more in regards to simple charity. In the end, these people are trying their best to help communities, and they often do good. I don't want to gate keep how people can help others. I disagree with your opinion that social practice art is not art. The way these works are executed, the ideas behind them are what make them art. It is performance art but with real life people as actors and real life people as beneficiaries.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mia
|