Carefully monitored controversy

What Makes Good Arts-Based Civic Dialogue Programs for Kids?

Separating Ethics from Art

In “The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents”, art historian and classically trained critic Claire Bishop rails against the recent tendency of works of socially engaged art to be automatically considered valuable on account of their artistic merit. She thinks that this ‘mistake’ occurs because in a world where many believe that interpersonal relationships are being steadily eroded by capitalism, any action that brings people together in order to set and realize a common goal appears to make an important and original statement. According to her, the problem is that political and ethical criteria are often confused with artistic standards when evaluating this sort of work. Often, things appear to be “good art” when they are actually just “good philanthropy”. As an art critic, Bishop considers this confusion is a problem because it makes comparing these types of projects to one another or to other works of art difficult.

The Artist’s Self-Sacrifice

While she and other traditional critics may be more concerned with evaluating socially engaged projects purely on the basis of conceptual design, Bishop’s article does make a insightful point about the Judeo-Christian origins of the ethical framework used by scholars who evaluate collaborative art projects primarily in moral terms. “The discursive criteria of socially engaged art are, at present, drawn from a tacit analogy between anticapitalism and the Christian ‘good soul’,” writes Bishop, arguing that the smaller the creative role of the artist, the more favorably the project is (in her view) wrongfully received. Are projects in which the artist(s) sacrifice agency to constituents conceptually lacking? Are projects on the other end of the scale, in which community members are involved merely as sources of labor, exploitative or unfair to communities?

A Useful Example: The Manton Avenue Project

Bishop would probably consider the structure of Olneyville’s Manton Avenue Project — youth amateurs writing scripts for adult professionals, rather than the other way around — the artistic meat of the endeavor, and waste little time on anything else. In respect to the project’s conceptual basis, she would likely see this as a piece which is successful by the loose ethical standards mentioned above, but less successful as actual artwork. If the conceptual element of the project would not earn it value in a critic’s eyes, what about in the eyes of anyone else?

The Need for Evaluative Criteria

Drawing attention to the surreptitious formation of this increasingly conventional philanthropic criteria, Bishop’s argument highlights a need for a more self-conscious rubric by which to evaluate such projects. If it is not appropriate to critique socially engaged art by traditional artistic standards, nor by purely ethical ones, by what system should we evaluate it?

Below the level of structural design, collaborative projects are also defined by efficacy — not art, but the purposes which many of their founders claim. If blurring the lines between art and social work is troubling to some critics, perhaps it is useful to explicitly define the criteria of each separate system. Art criticism is an ancient and well established field with its own set of disciplinary guidelines. But what standards should be used to evaluate efficacy, and what, if any, should we use to judge the works that are produced in the process? Is there ever room for aesthetic standards when it comes to children’s participatory artwork?

If They Never Claimed to be Art . . .

What would critics like Bishop make of “arts organizations” that explicitly claim to use art making to bring about social change? According to their website, the mission of Olneyville’s Manton Avenue Project “is to unleash the creative voices and unique potential of children living in Providence’s Olneyville neighborhood”. The decade old organization, which recreates the work of New York City’s 52nd Street Project by bringing adult actors in to perform kids’ original plays, claims to equip children with creative thinking and leadership skills, increased capacity for academic and social success, self-efficacy, and confidence. They express a belief in “theater [as] a powerful vehicle for personal and social change.” Nowhere, however, does the Manton Avenue Project claim to be — or even make — art. What, then, are the creative works it produces?

. . . What Do They Make?

Are the kids’ plays and the actors’ performances at the Manton Avenue Project art? If not, what are they? Endearing byproducts of a conceptual model and social work that tug at donors’ heartstrings, later to collect dust as uncharted scrapbook fodder? Or are their collaborative creations evidence of successful youth enrichment, in which can be traced the changing currents of self-image, perseverance, and cooperation?

Suggested Criteria

Why Do We Need a Good Model?

If I cannot make an argument for the artistic value of the work of organizations seeking to use art to spark positive social change, I can respond to Bishop’s article by taking her point about the absence of a clear framework for judging the utility of such projects. But is it really necessary to argue for the artistic value of such projects? If Bishop takes issue with such projects calling themselves art and receiving critical acclaim as such, what of projects whose stated missions make no claims whatsoever to being ‘art’? Instead of “socially engaged art”, I will use David Kertzer’s “arts-based civic dialogue programming”. Because of my particular interests, and to make it easier to suggest general guidelines that can be applied to all projects in this category, I will also narrow the projects I am concerned with to programs that work primarily with youth. It is in this spirit that I suggest a model for projects seeking to use art and artistic techniques to spark productive civic dialogue among youth in a place-based community.

General Criteria

The following elements are one model for good social practice work with young people. The extent to which a program accomplishes these five items is one way the success of such activities could be evaluated. Not all of them will apply to every project, but the majority of projects should accomplish more than half of them. A good arts based civic dialogue program for children should . . . .

Broach a pertinent civic issue and provides background information. The program should either

· Use art to move towards a current civic debate – Using an existing book, play, film, painting, or other work, facilitators cultivate a respectful but open dialogue about an issue currently faced by the community.

· Start with a source from the media on a recent or ongoing event – A newspaper article or televised story can spark a debate about what should be done to solve a real life problem.

At this stage, it is of crucial importance that kids understand that there is a safe space where they can respectfully express their opinions and expect respect in return, even when there are disagreements. While it is important that the issue be age appropriate and that care is taken to present it in a manner that is considerate and respectful, it is also critical not to shy away from controversial themes. This might mean getting explicit parental consent. At the beginning of the discussion, a reasonable, impartial case should be made for all sides of the debate so that participants are not biased one way or another.

2. Based on the salient and provocative issue, participants should work with facilitators to create a new or “remixed” artwork that can start a productive dialogue in the wider community.

This could mean a creative reading or performance of a text, displaying artwork inspired by an original, or installing an entirely new creation which depicts a situation similar to the current one. The important thing is not that kids’ artwork suggests a solution to the problem, but that it conveys multiple sides of the issue at hand in an accessible way. With the help of adult mentors, kids are working as artists to highlight important questions, not provide solid answers.

3. This work should be performed or displayed for a larger audience, including not just friends and family members of the participants, but segments of the population that are unrelated but connected with the issue.

As Glenn Wharton learned in the project he chronicles in The Painted King: Art, Activism, and Authenticity in Hawai’i, careful consideration must be given to how to connect with a wide variety of audiences. Location, format, price, and language are important factors to consider, as are time, duration, and accessibility.

4. The community should be inspired and given an inviting forum to respond, with the knowledge that something will become of their responses.

This is key. A performance can be followed by a “Talk-Back” session, but audiences often need even more encouragement to speak up. Entry points such as specific questions, beginning with easily answered ones, can get people comfortable with talking out loud in a group environment. Activities where answers are given nonverbally (“Stand here if you think the city offices should recognize Columbus Day!”) are another good way to help people hesitant about public speaking. Whether in the form of interviews, a survey, or an outlet for creative responses, responding should be easy and unintimidating, and people should feel as though their thoughts are valued.

Giving people a reason to respond is also critical. It’s not enough to say, “Here are some dry erase markers. Write what you think of the new shopping center below our nature mural!” Like Adair, Filene, and Koloski argue in Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a User Generated World, people need to know that their contributions will be seen by someone and accomplish something.

5. Children should respond creatively to this feedback.

With a careful record of what was said at a “Talk-Back” following a school play, a follow up performance can be created that takes into account new suggestions. At this point, facilitators bring kids back to the drawing board and see what new perspectives have been opened on the topic, in light of commentary sparked by the original display/performance. Together, participants and facilitators either modify the original work or creating a new one altogether. It’s not a dialogue unless there is an ongoing exchange, and the topic chosen should be complex enough that there is not a simple answer. At this point, there probably still will not be a clear solution on the table, and many of the most successful art based civic dialogue programs will continue to ask and respond to questions, alternating between listening and making. This can also be an opportunity for service learning work.

Ideas for “The Good Neighbor Plays” at the Manton Avenue Project

In the Fall 2014, the Manton Avenue Project’s playwriting classes are focusing on a thematic question: What does it mean to be a good neighbor? As the children will be working with local businesses and the center of commerce to find ways of connecting this project with the community, I have used an imagined Manton Avenue Project (MAP) program to illustrate what a program that meets the above criteria might look like.

Broach a pertinent civic issue and provides background information.

Students in the playwriting class at the Manton Avenue Project read an age appropriate quarantine story to broach the topic of Ebola, later looking at statistics on disease and the cost of health care.

OR, a dramaturg at the Manton Avenue Project brings in an article about the local journalist battling with Ebola and how they are having trouble paying the immense medical bills. Participants discuss what should be done.

2. Based on the salient and provocative issue, participants should work with facilitators to create a new or “remixed” artwork that can start a productive dialogue in the wider community.

Participants at the Manton Avenue Project decide to put on a play in which an alligator is stuck in quicksand. His friends and family want to help him out or at least get him to feel better while he’s stuck, but can’t go near him without getting sucked in too. If they had a very long, strong branch, they could help him out – but nobody has a branch that long and they don’t know where to get one.

The MAP seeks and is granted permission to perform the Swamp Neighbor Play at a city council meeting.

4. The community should be inspired and given an inviting forum to respond, with the knowledge that something will become of their responses.

MAP participants lead a “Talk-Back” which starts with “Walk this way if . . .” Later people discuss how funds could be raised to pay medical bills in small groups, and a participant in each group sums up their conversations for everyone at the end.

5. Children should have responded creatively to this feedback.

Another play is created in which all of the swamp animals band together to figure out a way of helping their alligator friend. They realize that while none of them have a strong enough stick on their own, if they braid together all their sticks and roots and grasses and webs, they can make a rope long enough to help the alligator out of the quicksand.