Is it possible/necessary/useful/to write a theoretical framework of social practice?
Photo: Evan Amos.
“You can’t just have one.” (Lays Potato Chips, 1983)
Skimming through the clever Open Engagement blog entries so far, these questions of art and social practice are approached through a number of frames: disciplines of art history, sociology, education, politics… and theories of aesthetics, cultural democracy, self-determination, and social currency. Upon deeper reading, something more striking becomes apparent. The subjects explored are each quite different from another. The embedded values in their writing and the applied aesthetics they draw on allude to a diverse and often competing range of art genres. Without a theoretical framework for social practice, how do we know we are talking about the same thing?
We know this art practice in the social realm by many names––participatory arts, socially-engaged arts, new genre public art, community arts, relational or dialogical art, applied aesthetics, littoral arts, community cultural development and most recently––social practice. Much of the liveliness in this debate has less to do with methodology of the practice itself and more to do with how to describe it. Charnley explains this as internal art world conflict: “clear tensions involved in current understanding of artists’ attempts to engage with the social through some form of collaborative, dialogic or relational practice.”[1]
Through many years of my own practice, I have resisted the idea that socially-engaged art could be formally taught. “We learned these values in the trenches––through addressing real community issues, by means of creative collaborations and mentorship, and a personal drive to respond to the inequities of the world.” I feared the institutionalization and professionalization of what I understood to be an inherently grassroots and often resistant form of political art would render these intents moot. Think workers theatre, feminist art collectives, AIDs activists’ Day without Art, or Chicano theatre––these artists were in fact critiquing art world hierarchies through artistic actions from the margins. Even now as an artist-researcher working in a university context, I am yet to abandon concerns for the potential of the appropriation and colonization of these relational strategies for institutional gain or governmental control.
Exploring philosophical questions about the boundaries between art and the everyday––and the political and aesthetic criteria through which art is evaluated, social practice remains under-theorized. Following Bishop (2012) and Kester (1996), I extend the call for a more critical account of participatory genres. [2] I also contend that national contexts are crucial in understanding how categories of art function, paying particular attention to the shaping role of institutional environments and cultural histories. For instance, social practice in Australia may inherit interest in radical political potential from staunch traditions of community arts and resistance of contemporary artists to the governmentality of community cultural development; while social practice artists in America may be exploring new social economies in light of global financial crisis and lack of government support of the arts. Like evolution, our work has a genealogy.
A way forward for theorizing social practice is the dismantling of linear art histories and the creation of new frameworks at the intersection of art and other disciplines interested in the social realm. This conceptual work can assist us in positioning our art practices by thinking more deeply about what we do. Building on rationale from social scientist, Gregory M. Herek, [3] I offer three ways theorization may help to guide the logic of what we are doing:
1. Laying out assumptions and making clear your informing concepts permits them to be evaluated critically.
2. Grounding ideas in theory builds on and connects your practice to existing knowledge and traditions of thought.
3. These lines of reasoning force you to address the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of your practice or project, while setting limits of your interaction or provocation.
By no means could there ever be only one superior frame, but it is clear that this burgeoning field of social practice does share a number of elements and inquiries regarding authorship, social activism and public space. Multiple frameworks are required so we do not limit creativity or impose the very structures of cultural hegemony we intend to challenge through art and social practice.
The author would like to acknowledge Dr Lachlan MacDowall and Dr James Oliver at the Centre for Cultural Partnerships, University of Melbourne for conversations exploring the construction of social practice in Australia.
[1] Kim Charnley. 2011, “Dissensus and The Politics of Collaborative Practice,” Art & the Public Sphere 1, no. 1.
[2] Clare Bishop. 2012, Artificial Hells: Participatory Arts and the Politics of Spectatorship. Brooklyn, New York: Verso Books., Grant Kester. 1995, ‘Aesthetic Evangelists: Conversion and Empowerment in Contemporary Community Art,” in Afterimage vol 22, no. 6.
[3] Gregory M. Herek. 2011, “Developing a Theoretical Framework and Rationale for a Research Proposal”, A Guide for Social and Behavioral Scientists, Springer.
About the contributor: Originally from Canada, Dr Marnie Badham is an artist-researcher exploring representational practice (policy, art, research) with politically or socially marginalized communities. As a lecturer and researcher at the Centre for Cultural Partnerships, University of Melbourne, Marnie’s current research interests include the practices, politics and histories of socially-engaged arts. Marnie consults on a number of international research projects, publishes and presents extensively, while maintaining an active art practice through residencies, exhibitions and other community-based collaborations.