- Three key ideas discussed in the text that resonated with you and your interests or wonderings about community engaged arts
- Three questions sparked by the content and/or vocabulary of the text
One key idea that resonated with me is when the question came up of how do you form communities and communal identity without creating a scapegoat. When talking about the concepts of Utopia's, this is one of the core concepts thats arises: how do you create a paradise without creating a gulag? This leads to worldviews like how the community is the utopia and the Outside is the scapegoat. But to create a community that can thrive in its structure without the need to create fear to maintain the structure is the end goal for certain community engaged arts. Another key idea that resonated with me was that of discussion and its role in the community engaged arts. It seems as if every piece mentioned in the reading had a discussion phase in it, whether it be the discussion as a performance with The Roof is On Fire or the discussion with the bus drivers in the Routes project. Dialogue and the exchange of ideas between at least two people seem to be a core concept of most of the community based arts.
Lastly, from the reading I get the idea that while there are similar structures to the process of creating community engaged art, the outcome or end results are never as linear. Some projects may strive for structural change in a community, while some are simply to bring up a previously unknown or hidden idea, and other projects are simply to create a physical product. While the processes to beginning and going through with a community based project are roughly similar across the board, the outcomes and results are not the same.
A question I had when reading this text was in regards to when they were writing about the critics point of view. To summarize, they say that the classical art critic will look at a dialogical based project and say it failed because it is not aesthetic or visually stimulating. My question is which critics are actually doing this though? Maybe it is the age of the reading, but any person who approaches a dialogue based project and looks negatively on the lack of visual stimulation is someone who can not differentiate between left and right. This part of the reading almost made me question the validity of the text as a whole, as this seems like such an outlandish response from a critic.
A critique I had is related to when they were writing about modernist and postmodernist theory on participation. To summarize, they state that the idea that art should be defined by its relationship to the audience or that its ability to gather participation, that this idea is antithetical to modernist and postmodernist theory. While this is true for postmodernist theory, modernist art of the 20th century is always defined by its relationship with the audience. The liberatory or emancipative aspect of each modernist art piece and how it interacts with the people is the main driving force in determining the form and definition of a modernist art piece. The very failure of modernist art lead to the change of this aspect as can be seen in post modernist art, where it is no longer about the solicitation of the audience but the questioning of ideas.
Lastly, from the reading I get the idea that while there are similar structures to the process of creating community engaged art, the outcome or end results are never as linear. Some projects may strive for structural change in a community, while some are simply to bring up a previously unknown or hidden idea, and other projects are simply to create a physical product. While the processes to beginning and going through with a community based project are roughly similar across the board, the outcomes and results are not the same.
A question I had when reading this text was in regards to when they were writing about the critics point of view. To summarize, they say that the classical art critic will look at a dialogical based project and say it failed because it is not aesthetic or visually stimulating. My question is which critics are actually doing this though? Maybe it is the age of the reading, but any person who approaches a dialogue based project and looks negatively on the lack of visual stimulation is someone who can not differentiate between left and right. This part of the reading almost made me question the validity of the text as a whole, as this seems like such an outlandish response from a critic.
A critique I had is related to when they were writing about modernist and postmodernist theory on participation. To summarize, they state that the idea that art should be defined by its relationship to the audience or that its ability to gather participation, that this idea is antithetical to modernist and postmodernist theory. While this is true for postmodernist theory, modernist art of the 20th century is always defined by its relationship with the audience. The liberatory or emancipative aspect of each modernist art piece and how it interacts with the people is the main driving force in determining the form and definition of a modernist art piece. The very failure of modernist art lead to the change of this aspect as can be seen in post modernist art, where it is no longer about the solicitation of the audience but the questioning of ideas.
Comments
Post a Comment