15.4.20 Claire Bishop, Participatory art
‘a definition of participation in which people constitute the central artistic medium and material’ (Bishop, 2012, p 6)
‘less interested in a relational aesthetic than in the creative rewards of participation as a politicised working process.’
Participation is political: ‘participation as a politicised working process.’
‘the hallmark of an artistic orientation towards the social in the 1990s has been a shared set of desires to overturn the traditional relationship between the art object, the artist and the audience. To put it simply: the artist is conceived less as an individual producer of discrete objects than as; the work of art as a finite, portable, commodifiable product is reconceived as an ongoing or long- term project with an unclear beginning and end; while the audience, previously conceived as a ‘viewer’ or ‘beholder’, is now repositioned as a co- producer or participant.’ (Bishop, 2012, p 6)
Art as situation: ‘the artist’ is ‘a collaborator and producer of situations’.. ‘an ongoing or long- term project with an unclear beginning and end… the audience…, is now repositioned as a co- producer or participant.’
This definitely resonates with my participatory work.
‘One thing is clear: visual analyses fall short when confronted with the documentary material through which we are given to understand many of these practices. To grasp participatory art from images alone is almost impossible: casual photographs of people talking, eating, attending a workshop or screening or seminar tell us very little, almost nothing, about the concept and context of a given project. They rarely provide more than fragmentary evidence, and convey nothing of the affective dynamic that propels artists to make these projects and people to participate in them. To what extent is this a new problem? Some of the best conceptual and performance art in the 1960s and ’70s similarly sought to refute the commodity- object in favour of an elusive experience. Yet visuality always remained important to this task: however ‘deskilled’ or desubjectivised, conceptual and performance art nevertheless manage to prompt a wide range of affective responses, and their photo- documentation is capable of provoking deadpan amusement, wry embarrassment, iconic reverence or appalled disgust. By contrast, today’s participatory art is often at pains to emphasise process over a definitive image, concept or object. It tends to value what is invisible: a group dynamic, a social situation, a change of energy, a raised consciousness. As a result, it is an art dependent on firsthand experience, and preferably over a long duration (days, months or even years).’ (Bishop, 2012, p5, 6)
Documentation: how can it capture the ‘affective dynamic’? Participatory art as an ‘elusive experience’, ephemeral.
Participatory art today: ‘is often at pains to emphasise process over a definitive image, concept or object. It tends to value what is invisible: a group dynamic, a social situation, a change of energy, a raised consciousness.’ This is definitely what has made my Wishing trees significant. How do I capture and communicate the latter as documentation?
Particiaptory art and time: ‘It’s an art dependent on first-hand experience, and preferably over a long duration (days, months or even years).’ This also applies to my Wishing trees. That they change over time is significant; that people respond to what others before them is also a unique aspect. Planted and tended by me, intensively at first, but then they have developed a life of their own.
‘any art engaging with society and the people in it demands a methodological reading that is, at least in part, sociological. By this I mean that an analysis of this art must necessarily engage with concepts that have traditionally had more currency within the social sciences than in the humanities: community, society, empowerment, agency. As a result of artists’ expanding curiosity in participation, specific vocabularies of social organisation and models of democracy have come to assume a new relevance for the analysis of contemporary art. But since participatory art is not only a social activity but also a symbolic one, both embedded in the world and at one remove from it, the positivist social sciences are ultimately less useful in this regard than the abstract reflections of political philosophy. This methodological aspect of the ‘social turn’ is one of the challenges faced by art historians and critics when dealing with contemporary art’s expanded field. Participatory art demands that we find new ways of analysing art that are no longer linked solely to visuality, even though form remains a crucial vessel for communicating meaning. In order to analyse the works discussed in this book, theories and terms have been imported from political philosophy, but also from theatre history and performance studies, cultural policy and architecture (Bishop, 2012, p 7)
Participatory art sociology and political philosophy: ‘it demands a methodological reading that is, at least in part, sociological… community, society, empowerment, agency.’ But also ‘the abstract reflections of political philosophy’…in ‘contemporary art’s expanded field’ and ‘Participatory art demands that we find new ways of analysing art that are no longer linked solely to visuality, even though form remains a crucial vessel for communicating meaning.’
Bishop, C. (2012) Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship London & New York: Verso, Available at: https://selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bishop-claire-artificial-hells-participatory-art-and-politics-spectatorship.pdf (Accessed: 17 December 2019)
‘a definition of participation in which people constitute the central artistic medium and material’ (Bishop, 2012, p 6)
‘less interested in a relational aesthetic than in the creative rewards of participation as a politicised working process.’
Participation is political: ‘participation as a politicised working process.’
‘the hallmark of an artistic orientation towards the social in the 1990s has been a shared set of desires to overturn the traditional relationship between the art object, the artist and the audience. To put it simply: the artist is conceived less as an individual producer of discrete objects than as; the work of art as a finite, portable, commodifiable product is reconceived as an ongoing or long- term project with an unclear beginning and end; while the audience, previously conceived as a ‘viewer’ or ‘beholder’, is now repositioned as a co- producer or participant.’ (Bishop, 2012, p 6)
Art as situation: ‘the artist’ is ‘a collaborator and producer of situations’.. ‘an ongoing or long- term project with an unclear beginning and end… the audience…, is now repositioned as a co- producer or participant.’
This definitely resonates with my participatory work.
‘One thing is clear: visual analyses fall short when confronted with the documentary material through which we are given to understand many of these practices. To grasp participatory art from images alone is almost impossible: casual photographs of people talking, eating, attending a workshop or screening or seminar tell us very little, almost nothing, about the concept and context of a given project. They rarely provide more than fragmentary evidence, and convey nothing of the affective dynamic that propels artists to make these projects and people to participate in them. To what extent is this a new problem? Some of the best conceptual and performance art in the 1960s and ’70s similarly sought to refute the commodity- object in favour of an elusive experience. Yet visuality always remained important to this task: however ‘deskilled’ or desubjectivised, conceptual and performance art nevertheless manage to prompt a wide range of affective responses, and their photo- documentation is capable of provoking deadpan amusement, wry embarrassment, iconic reverence or appalled disgust. By contrast, today’s participatory art is often at pains to emphasise process over a definitive image, concept or object. It tends to value what is invisible: a group dynamic, a social situation, a change of energy, a raised consciousness. As a result, it is an art dependent on firsthand experience, and preferably over a long duration (days, months or even years).’ (Bishop, 2012, p5, 6)
Documentation: how can it capture the ‘affective dynamic’? Participatory art as an ‘elusive experience’, ephemeral.
Participatory art today: ‘is often at pains to emphasise process over a definitive image, concept or object. It tends to value what is invisible: a group dynamic, a social situation, a change of energy, a raised consciousness.’ This is definitely what has made my Wishing trees significant. How do I capture and communicate the latter as documentation?
Particiaptory art and time: ‘It’s an art dependent on first-hand experience, and preferably over a long duration (days, months or even years).’ This also applies to my Wishing trees. That they change over time is significant; that people respond to what others before them is also a unique aspect. Planted and tended by me, intensively at first, but then they have developed a life of their own.
‘any art engaging with society and the people in it demands a methodological reading that is, at least in part, sociological. By this I mean that an analysis of this art must necessarily engage with concepts that have traditionally had more currency within the social sciences than in the humanities: community, society, empowerment, agency. As a result of artists’ expanding curiosity in participation, specific vocabularies of social organisation and models of democracy have come to assume a new relevance for the analysis of contemporary art. But since participatory art is not only a social activity but also a symbolic one, both embedded in the world and at one remove from it, the positivist social sciences are ultimately less useful in this regard than the abstract reflections of political philosophy. This methodological aspect of the ‘social turn’ is one of the challenges faced by art historians and critics when dealing with contemporary art’s expanded field. Participatory art demands that we find new ways of analysing art that are no longer linked solely to visuality, even though form remains a crucial vessel for communicating meaning. In order to analyse the works discussed in this book, theories and terms have been imported from political philosophy, but also from theatre history and performance studies, cultural policy and architecture (Bishop, 2012, p 7)
Participatory art sociology and political philosophy: ‘it demands a methodological reading that is, at least in part, sociological… community, society, empowerment, agency.’ But also ‘the abstract reflections of political philosophy’…in ‘contemporary art’s expanded field’ and ‘Participatory art demands that we find new ways of analysing art that are no longer linked solely to visuality, even though form remains a crucial vessel for communicating meaning.’
Bishop, C. (2012) Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship London & New York: Verso, Available at: https://selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bishop-claire-artificial-hells-participatory-art-and-politics-spectatorship.pdf (Accessed: 17 December 2019)