29.3.20 Participation, public and private
It has been interesting to chart the progress of the wishing tree over the past week. It’s an unprecedented time at the moment, and facilitating socially engaged and participatory art projects takes some thinking. We’re all in isolation, based at home, in turmoil, with high levels of fear and anxiety, unable to concentrate on ‘normal’ things and more reliant on virtual connections now more than ever. There are various aspects I’d like to focus on in more depth:
Public/private spheres
I’ve discussed this at length elsewhere in relation to my knitting practice, but now I wanted to specifically look at this binary in relation to participatory art.
The German philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, first discussed the public /private divide of spheres in the 60s in his book, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. It was an attempt to classify ‘the formation of public opinions and the legitimisation of state and democracy in post-war Western societies’ (mwengenmeir, no date). Historically, women were excluded from this public sphere, and
‘(t)his distinction between the public and private spheres can help to explain why … women had to fight for the right to vote in order to participate in politics, and why gender stereotypes about women "belonging in the home" linger today’ (ibid).
This binary of influence has a racial element as well, as black and ethnic minority groups have been excluded from the public sphere and are still under represented in politics in the USA and the UK (ibid).
mwengenmeir goes on to say that Habermas’ theory is ‘widely accepted … but has also been widely challenged as the concept of the public sphere is constantly developing’ (ibid). Crossman states, ‘the boundary between the public and private sphere is not fixed; instead, it is flexible and permeable, and is always fluctuating and evolving’ (2019). I find this exciting, especially at the moment, when everything is shut down, yet there’s also a sense of flux and change.
The public and the private in my practice
For a couple of years, my artist statement has stated:
‘Lou Baker makes public things that are normally private. She is both a maker and a facilitator. Her work provokes a range of conflicting responses; attraction, repulsion, horror and hilarity.’ (Baker, 2018)
It seems that this is still the essence of my practice. Foreseeing lock down, I did 2 things
My work also ‘makes public things that are normally private’ as a conceptual framework. My aim is to produce work that presents subjects that are potentially controversial, or even taboo, to promote thought and discussion and to provoke a response.
Private wishes?
I was interested to read that Yoko Ono doesn’t read any of the wishes added to her wishing tree installations. She says:
‘I’m keeping all the wishes from all the countries, although I never read any of them. I feel it’s not right to read people’s private wishes.’ (Lennon, 1996)
I feel differently, especially in terms of this particular situation. I need to read the messages that people add, and I think others do too. Some of the messages sent via social media have been sent as private messages, but with a request to make them public by adding them to the tree; most have been sent ‘publically’, on social media. I assume that Ono’s participants read some of the messages from other people, before they write their own? It seems odd not to, and for me this is a big part of the way that a participatory piece is transformed. One person reads what has gone before and then responds. Now, it becomes a collective response to this situation, almost a socially distanced conversation. Each interaction amplifies the provocation sometimes taking it in interesting directions. I’ve been extremely touched by all the thoughtful messages of hope, and I know other people have too. Maybe Yoko has too many?
Also, each of my provocations invites a response to a specific theme, whereas Yoko’s are always about peace, I think. That might be a difference too.
I also think that if someone adds something to an installation in a public place they want it to be seen and read, otherwise they would obscure it somehow.
Ono has kept all the wishes from her installations and apparently there are millions! She says
‘All of them will be put in one big tower of a sculpture, like a totem. It will be a very powerful sculpture… a tower which contains wishes of the people of the world of our time’ (ibid)
She suggests that they will contain great energy collectively.
I have kept the physical labels from my previous installations, but I’ve also documented them all by photographing them, sharing them on social media and sometimes making presentations about them. I have wondered about permissions for this, but I think permission is implicit when someone adds something to a public art installation. Most of them have been relatively anonymous in the past, but now, I’ve been tagging people if they’ve sent me a message to add, including an image of their message on the tree. They all seem to appreciate that, saying they wish they could add their own wish.
There are other aspects of participatory art in lockdown that I want to research further.
3. Contamination anxiety
4. Relational aesthetics/relational antagonism
Crossman states, ‘the boundary between the public and private sphere is not fixed; instead, it is flexible and permeable, and is always fluctuating and evolving’ (2019). This, I think, is a critical point.
Reference list:
Baker, L. (2018) Artist statement Available at: https://loubakerartist.co.uk/about/artist-s-statement (Accessed 29 March 2020)
Baker, L. (2020) Critical knitting; knitting as a research method, unpublished post-graduate essay
Crossman, A. (2019) Understanding Private and Public Spheres Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/private-and-public-spheres-3026464 (Accessed 25 March 2020)
Habermas, J. (1964) The public sphere Available at: https://www.konstfack.se/PageFiles/24768/habermas-1964-the-public-sphere.pdf (Accessed: 25 March 2020)
Lennon, Y.O. (1996) Interview with Yoko Ono Available at: http://imaginepeacetower.com/yoko-onos-wish-trees/ (Accessed 26 March 2020)
mwengenmeir (no date) Habermas’ public sphere Available at: (https://opentextbc.ca/mediastudies101/chapter/habermas-public-sphere/ (Accessed 25 March 2020)
Papacharissi, Z. (no date) The Virtual Sphere 2.0: The Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond Available at: https://victorsampedro.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Papacharissi-The-Virtual-Sphere-Revisited-Handbook.pdf (Accessed; 25 March 2020)
Smith, K. (2012) Difference Between Public and Private Space Available at: https://kailasmithemsociallanguagedigitalmedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/difference-between-public-and-private-space/ (Accessed: 25 March 2020)
It has been interesting to chart the progress of the wishing tree over the past week. It’s an unprecedented time at the moment, and facilitating socially engaged and participatory art projects takes some thinking. We’re all in isolation, based at home, in turmoil, with high levels of fear and anxiety, unable to concentrate on ‘normal’ things and more reliant on virtual connections now more than ever. There are various aspects I’d like to focus on in more depth:
Public/private spheres
I’ve discussed this at length elsewhere in relation to my knitting practice, but now I wanted to specifically look at this binary in relation to participatory art.
The German philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, first discussed the public /private divide of spheres in the 60s in his book, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. It was an attempt to classify ‘the formation of public opinions and the legitimisation of state and democracy in post-war Western societies’ (mwengenmeir, no date). Historically, women were excluded from this public sphere, and
‘(t)his distinction between the public and private spheres can help to explain why … women had to fight for the right to vote in order to participate in politics, and why gender stereotypes about women "belonging in the home" linger today’ (ibid).
This binary of influence has a racial element as well, as black and ethnic minority groups have been excluded from the public sphere and are still under represented in politics in the USA and the UK (ibid).
mwengenmeir goes on to say that Habermas’ theory is ‘widely accepted … but has also been widely challenged as the concept of the public sphere is constantly developing’ (ibid). Crossman states, ‘the boundary between the public and private sphere is not fixed; instead, it is flexible and permeable, and is always fluctuating and evolving’ (2019). I find this exciting, especially at the moment, when everything is shut down, yet there’s also a sense of flux and change.
The public and the private in my practice
For a couple of years, my artist statement has stated:
‘Lou Baker makes public things that are normally private. She is both a maker and a facilitator. Her work provokes a range of conflicting responses; attraction, repulsion, horror and hilarity.’ (Baker, 2018)
It seems that this is still the essence of my practice. Foreseeing lock down, I did 2 things
- I started knitting a Body cocoon: this will exclusively be knitted in my private spaces because of lock down
- I set up a new Instagram account @socialengagement, to provide a platform specifically for art connection. I’m still not sure what this will become, but at the moment, I’m sharing other people’s posts about participatory projects etc
My work also ‘makes public things that are normally private’ as a conceptual framework. My aim is to produce work that presents subjects that are potentially controversial, or even taboo, to promote thought and discussion and to provoke a response.
Private wishes?
I was interested to read that Yoko Ono doesn’t read any of the wishes added to her wishing tree installations. She says:
‘I’m keeping all the wishes from all the countries, although I never read any of them. I feel it’s not right to read people’s private wishes.’ (Lennon, 1996)
I feel differently, especially in terms of this particular situation. I need to read the messages that people add, and I think others do too. Some of the messages sent via social media have been sent as private messages, but with a request to make them public by adding them to the tree; most have been sent ‘publically’, on social media. I assume that Ono’s participants read some of the messages from other people, before they write their own? It seems odd not to, and for me this is a big part of the way that a participatory piece is transformed. One person reads what has gone before and then responds. Now, it becomes a collective response to this situation, almost a socially distanced conversation. Each interaction amplifies the provocation sometimes taking it in interesting directions. I’ve been extremely touched by all the thoughtful messages of hope, and I know other people have too. Maybe Yoko has too many?
Also, each of my provocations invites a response to a specific theme, whereas Yoko’s are always about peace, I think. That might be a difference too.
I also think that if someone adds something to an installation in a public place they want it to be seen and read, otherwise they would obscure it somehow.
Ono has kept all the wishes from her installations and apparently there are millions! She says
‘All of them will be put in one big tower of a sculpture, like a totem. It will be a very powerful sculpture… a tower which contains wishes of the people of the world of our time’ (ibid)
She suggests that they will contain great energy collectively.
I have kept the physical labels from my previous installations, but I’ve also documented them all by photographing them, sharing them on social media and sometimes making presentations about them. I have wondered about permissions for this, but I think permission is implicit when someone adds something to a public art installation. Most of them have been relatively anonymous in the past, but now, I’ve been tagging people if they’ve sent me a message to add, including an image of their message on the tree. They all seem to appreciate that, saying they wish they could add their own wish.
There are other aspects of participatory art in lockdown that I want to research further.
- Provocation or invitation?
- Virtual participation and the internet vs physical participation
3. Contamination anxiety
4. Relational aesthetics/relational antagonism
Crossman states, ‘the boundary between the public and private sphere is not fixed; instead, it is flexible and permeable, and is always fluctuating and evolving’ (2019). This, I think, is a critical point.
Reference list:
Baker, L. (2018) Artist statement Available at: https://loubakerartist.co.uk/about/artist-s-statement (Accessed 29 March 2020)
Baker, L. (2020) Critical knitting; knitting as a research method, unpublished post-graduate essay
Crossman, A. (2019) Understanding Private and Public Spheres Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/private-and-public-spheres-3026464 (Accessed 25 March 2020)
Habermas, J. (1964) The public sphere Available at: https://www.konstfack.se/PageFiles/24768/habermas-1964-the-public-sphere.pdf (Accessed: 25 March 2020)
Lennon, Y.O. (1996) Interview with Yoko Ono Available at: http://imaginepeacetower.com/yoko-onos-wish-trees/ (Accessed 26 March 2020)
mwengenmeir (no date) Habermas’ public sphere Available at: (https://opentextbc.ca/mediastudies101/chapter/habermas-public-sphere/ (Accessed 25 March 2020)
Papacharissi, Z. (no date) The Virtual Sphere 2.0: The Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond Available at: https://victorsampedro.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Papacharissi-The-Virtual-Sphere-Revisited-Handbook.pdf (Accessed; 25 March 2020)
Smith, K. (2012) Difference Between Public and Private Space Available at: https://kailasmithemsociallanguagedigitalmedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/difference-between-public-and-private-space/ (Accessed: 25 March 2020)