“They are “context providers” rather than “content providers“”. This idea in the introduction was interesting to me because artists are usually in this mindset that we are creating art. In these communities, the artist plays a different role. Usually an artist, is just creating art, but in these communities, the artist are also working as a collaborative member that facilitates dialogue and communication.
Another idea that resonated with me was the bus drivers creating a community in the routes project. The bus drivers were able to look past everyones differences. Regardless of what beliefs they had, the bus drivers just did their jobs. The routes project helped set an example to future communities.
Another interesting I read about was when the article stated that the community has a positive and negative dimension. This was interesting to me because I didn’t think that the community has a positive and negative dimension. I think that inside a community, there might be differences but I wouldn’t necessarily call it a negative dimension. Just because people are different from one another does not mean, that something should be considered negative.
How does a community find a right balance to make a project engaging and collaborative instead of one party doing all the work? How does a community communicate with one another when there is a lack of resources?
Should the artist and/or artist collective be inclined to participate in their communities? How does an artist and/or artist collective find the right balance between self expression and intersubjective engagement.
The routes project started in 2001. Drivers looked past peoples religious and political differences. What is the difference? Why can’t people in todays day and age look past these differences and work together?
Comments
Post a Comment