ethics of engagement

a)

1. It is clear that Marten’s film “Enjoy Poverty'' was an unethical production and that he is an egocentric producer (pg 599).. However, this part of the essay made me consider more generally how much we should consider whether art collaborative art that is trying to get across a political message is ethical based on what the overall positive change which that art may cause. If the art is simply displaying a current social issue but the art does not create any lasting change, is that enough to consider it unethical.   
2. When reading about how ethnography is defined by James Clifford I  (pg.594) was able to think about how long the duration of such observation would need to be to create an accurate representation of the indidical, location or community that is being studied in the production of art. More so, this part of the essay allowed me to consider how the duration of observation relates to the ethics of collaborative art. Is longer observation more ethical because you are able to gain a more accurate representation or perhaps is it less ethical because it means the artist is ultimately occupying space for longer.  
3. When reading about ethnographic authority on (pg 597) I was able to consider, in a way I had not before, how that may play a role in assessing the ethics behind art being produced. When considering ethnographic authority and the way it was discussed in this essay I asked myself how an artist visibility or invisibility during an ethnographic study may not only change the art they produce but more so how this changes the ethics of the art.

b)

1.  If we think about ethics when collaborating with the public in order to produce art how much should we consider the way their participation may affect them after the art is produced? For example, Artur Zmijewski’s 80064 project-- having participants get their concentration camp numbers re-tattooed on their arms may have had lasting negative impacts on those individuals.
2. To what extent can we consider collaborative art to really be “collaboration” by definition of the word. If collaboration means: “ The action of working with someone to produce or create something” - then can we consider an individual simply participating in an artist (doing whatever it is that the artist needs done in order to produce their work) vision to be collaborative? 
3. When considering the ethics of collaborative and ethnographic art practices how much should we consider whether these practices are being used to produce art that is attempting to make a political message versus being used in order to produce a certain aesthetic? 

c)

This article allowed me to consider many new ways of  how the ethics behind the production of art collaborative art needs to be assessed. My main takeaways were that in order to attempt making community based art that is ethical and not exploitive the artist needs to really spend time considering whether their art is egocentric or whether it is  trying to convey a political message and bring actual lasting  change to a certain community or individual. More so, community- engaged arts needs to prioritize consent and make sure that all collaboration and participation is done out of consent. Lastly, community engaged arts needs to think critically about whether the collaboration is displaying an accurate reality of the given place, community or individual or whether it is displaying an altered or curated image. I think that creating ethical art is something that will always be challenging and at the forefront of conversation, as it should be. As Downey states at the end of his essay we need “a theory of collaboration and participation that employs an ethics of engagement, not as an afterthought or means by which to deconstruct such practices, but as a way of re-inscribing the aesthetic as a form of sociopolitical praxis” (603), we need to continue to prioritize these discussions and constantly work on making community based art more ethical.

d)

With a project like the Roof is on Fire, there were many ethical considerations that set this project into motion. Suzanne Lacy may have spent time considering whether her production was truly collaborative or rather participatory, she may have also needed to consider if the collaboration was consensual and how to create the work without exploiting the participants. Perhaps the one of the biggest considerations that Lacy would have needed to have when creating this work is how much of a lasting change this work would make to the lives of these participants and to the overall political injustices she was trying to bring to light. To its core, the Roof is on Fire was performance based and set out to perform these conversations and dialogue to advertise a political message. The code of ethics used resulted in lasting impacts within the community of teenagers it was engaging with.