Ethics of Engagement

A) 1. This reading illuminated for me the importance of relationships within community art. Focusing on the collaborative aspect as opposed to what is most "interesting" or "intriguing" about a situation will allow for the most honest, authentic process possible, and also gives the community the most agency possible. "Collaborative art practices, in short, appear to be judged on the basis of the ethical efficacy underwriting the artist’s relationship to his or her collaborators rather than what makes these works interesting as art"

2. Another value showcased was the modern importance of art's social impact, not only it's aesthetic value or physical quality. This recontextualizes art as a kind of "force" with potential long-term impact, as opposed to a passive object to be observed or interacted with. Instead, the art might interact with you. 

"‘accompanied by the idea that art should extract itself from the useless domain of the aesthetic and be fused with social praxis’"

3. Lastly, I had the realization that just because something is art, does not mean it is morally good or socially progressive. This seems obvious, but I personally have a mental association of the word "Art" with things I think are good- either influential painters or community organizers. However, when I read this line: 

"All three artists, in short, have paid individuals money to debase themselves in the name of artistic production." it was a shocking reminder that some acts of art actually promote systems of violence. Even if intended to illuminate or another convoluted intent, "To be patronized once by a disingenuous colonialist does not make it any less patronizing second time round by an all-too knowing artist in the name of film-making." Though an unpleasant realization, it reminds me of the importance of constantly having this conversation precisely because we are aware that art can do much more harm than good regardless of intent. 

B) 1. Before modern shifts, how were conversations about ethics in arts approached, if at all? Does object-based art, as opposed to context-based art, escape this conversation? Or is object-based art just unappreciated context-based art? Tomato, tomahto, maybe.
2. What are the ethics of approaching community-based art of a community you yourself belong to? Are you simultaneously a community member and artist, or could organizing a project isolate the organizer regardless? 

3.  What is considered "successful" community art? Is it about if everyone "likes" it, or if it inspires social change in the community?

C) This work has given me a deeper understanding of the importance of the process of art-making, including the people involved and its effects in the communities it's consumed. I'm also reminded of the importance of agency. In my own art, I try to create work that speaks to communities that I personally belong to, and through collaboration, I hope to uplift fellow artist's work through our shared voices. This reading has reaffirmed for me the importance of these voices always belonging to the people they come from within art that represents them. 

D) "The Roof Is On Fire", a 1993 community arts project, involved placing several teenagers within open cars to have candid conversations along certain topics, with community members invited to quietly observe. The art project aimed to share teenage perspective and allowing the teenagers to speak without adult interruption was successful to some extent on sharing their thoughts, but only within the parameters that the outside organizers set. If the goal of the project was to give the teenagers a platform than perhaps the project would've better benefitted from allowing the teenagers to organize their own project centered on sharing what they wanted to share with community members. Instead, it can be argued the teenagers were co-opted by the organizers to be used as a spectacle for outside performers since the participants did not have absolute freedom over the terms of the information they were sharing.