Community Engaged Art
Community engagement is defined by a group of people coming together in order to accomplish a certain goal or achievement as a collective. As a modern-day society, we are accustomed to seeing community engagement being practiced in volunteer groups, specific programs, but not so much for art pieces. Often times, we tend to “overlook” art as community engagement simply because we do not even realize that it is artistic in nature. Art experiences that require the viewer to interact and be involved in the process are considered to be acts of community engagement through art. According to Pablo Helguera, “most artists who produce socially engaged works are interested in creating a kind of collective art that impacts the public sphere in a deep and meaningful way, not in creating a representation — like a theatrical play — of a social issue” (7). When this occurs, socially engaged works may increase awareness towards societal or environmental issues in a more appealing way. This explains the necessity of socially engaged works as some art merely “mocks” or “pokes fun at” other issues rather than joining a community or group effort and making a difference. Additionally, Helguera describes that “social interaction occupies a central and inextricable part of any socially engaged artwork” as well as how much of an impact these engaged artworks make on society (8). It remains clear that interaction amongst others is a necessity when it comes to these types of work and how different it is in comparison to static pieces of art as a result.
Additionally, the author, Nicolas Bourriaud describes the idea of relational aesthetics and transitivity as well as their individual influence on the art scene today. He elaborates that art as a whole has become “a state of encounter” and that “the essence of humankind is purely trans-individual, made up of bonds that link individuals together in social forms” (18). Essentially, Bourriaud is discussing that it is natural for human beings to be social and that there is a beauty in the naturalness. This idea of living in a “shared world” allows artists to be able to hone in on these natural interactions as imperative factors in art as “the work of every artist is a bundle of relations with the world, giving rise to other relations” (Bourriaud 22). Bourriaud also describes the idea of “transitivity” among works of art and how it establishes a three-way connection between individuals and groups, the artist and the world, as well as the beholder and the world. These connections and relationships are what bring works of art their life as they create more frequent and natural discoveries among society.
Lastly, the author Alanna Lockward touches on the shift towards decolonial aesthetics within Black culture in Europe. She begins by discussing Afropean decolonial aesthetics and how they shed light on “current conceptualizations of diaspora aesthetics by illuminating the ways diaspora creators address the occlusions concealed by modernity that hide the dirty job of colonality”. This sense of modernity hides the truths regarding coloniality, however, Lockward connects that the “recognition in the mirroring mirages of modernity unites us in solidarity”. Lockward describes community engagement through embracing history and past developments as an “integral part of their own history.” It is evidently clear that each author/writer had their own interpretation or definition of community engagement and the role that art practices in society.
In accordance with Claire Bishop’s book “Artificial Hells,” she raises multiple critiques regarding the role of art institutions in creating a more “inclusive” art culture. One of her main points is that artists should not exhibit their work in galleries or even museums as they promote and “reinforce[s] the hierarchies of elite culture” (37). The rich and wealthy will buy art pieces due to their extreme wealth and the artwork simply becomes a tangible piece of property in the end. According to Bishop the main way people think of involving the lower classes is to have “direct inclusion in the production of a work” (38). This critical thought displays prejudice towards society other than the rich and elite, and does not promote a more inclusive art culture. If anything, these art galleries and museums are furthering societal reach and creating art to be for more exclusive people in society as a result.
All in all, Helguera, Bourriaud, and Lockward each described community engagement and art practices from their own experiences in society. Not only did each of them have different experiences, they each articulated community in similar, yet different fashions. Bishop also incorporated different thoughts regarding art institutions and how they establish a sense of prejudice and materialism in the art community as a result.
