Art as Social Practice: From Interaction to Collaboration

Art has a very long history that still has no precisely universal definition but commonly seen or used as “beauty” of something or having a skill to produce aesthetic result of work. For decades artists endeavoured to create a “better” art, where in my opinion most artists created art for their statue rather than society. We can come across to this approach of mine in early stage of Avant-Garde Art. Avant-Garde means vanguard: an artist at the forefront of any group or movement who experiences new methods and techniques to create reformist art. It was a very manipulative act which constitutes questions, such as: What is beauty or aesthetics? What forms a better art? But a rise of different forms of Avant-Garde in 20th century was useful for artists to become more responsive to nature, social issues and otherness in general. A reason for this formation linked to politics that spread anxious for artists. Thus, many artists and art collectives around the world associated to transform art, to make art an inspiration.

In time interaction between artists, audience, social and mainly political factors collaborated under collaborative art known as a socially engaged art or social practice. The notion of this social practice can be accepted as a participatory art where politics is a basis of it. Artists and community becoming together for a purpose or goal to raise an awareness, encouragement is also a close concept to Activism. Ethics, aesthetics, intuitions, media and many more influence socially engaged art but the main and key element for socially engaged art is a participating or volunteering. Art historians such as Grant Kester, Claire Bishop, a curator Nicolas Bourriaud, Nato Thompson and performance theorist Shannon Jackson, philosophers Jascques Ranciere and Jurgen Habermas are names that played a significant role in participatory art.

Claire Bishop was one of the few to make a historical overview for a participatory art in her published book, Artificial Hells according to Verso’s press release. Bishop challenged the effectiveness of political artworks, aesthetics limits, their effects on audience and the relation of participatory art to institutions. The term ‘social turn’ coined by Bishop in her 2006 essay The Social Turn: Collaboration and Its Discontents, she highlighted the process of social engagement over product. Criticism shaped by the system to judge the quality of relations when art is produced and not being able to critic art as act of art. I’d support Bishop in her Social Turn where she explains accurate fact that how individual artwork is more marketable than collaborative art. The socially engaged art could appear in a media easily but it is a hard process to sell or encourage viewers where it effects the institutions, curators because collaborative art must not be displayed in galleries or museums, it will lose its meaning. It is also a complex to determine a successful community marker, how can someone criticize, identify or appraise a socially engaged art work in ethical and aesthetic standards. Here again questions occur to be asked: What is a success? A “success” according to whom? As I comprehend a view of Grant Kester’s books that relates to Bishop’s: if “success” of a work consist, the success of a project should not depend on artist but the relationships that developed between artists, viewers, environment and society. Because the socially engaged art is like a reaction against the excess individualism. Yet Oda Projesi work was a great example of a collaborative art, it did not aesthetically display but it was a powerful art. The Oda Projesi is not untitled as a finished art, these projects used as kind of tools for an exchange or discourse to interact between participators and their surroundings, “…one of their project leaflets contains the slogan ‘exchange not change’…” (Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship, Claire Bishop, pg.20) For Oda Projesi we cannot focus on individual achievements (individualism) but see it from a perspective of the Relational Aesthetics.

Unfortunately, socially engaged art or projects are mostly flexible because there is more chance for a plan to go completely opposite direction. The destiny of a work or project mainly depends on the operation of it, where and when it takes place, how artists treat the participators etc. In my opinion the main two reasons are: artists’ approach towards participators especially if the project involves a payment and personal needs between artist and participators. To elaborate this opinion, I would like to give an example of socially engaged art by Francis Alys called, ‘When Faith Moves Mountains’. This project is one of the purest activist, social practice. He launched this idea to students in a faculty where he was teaching in Lima, Peru. At the beginning it sounded crazy for a few students later the idea of ‘doing something’ with a bunch of people became interesting. “The main persuasion was from one friend to another. That’s how we got people to go.” (http://francisalys.com/when-faith-moves-mountains/) and 500 volunteers walked in a line, used shovels to displace the sand dune by 10 cm a 500m from its original position. They encouraged and supported each other by physiologically and emotionally when shovelling. Every participator had their own reasons, individuality approach to this project. Therefore, I would like to think if Alys paid 500 volunteers to create this project: the outcome, meaning of this project and shared emotions, feelings between participators would be still the same? I don’t think so.

For Bishop there is a little efficacy of duration for artwork where Kester discourse the opposite opinion and narrate how duration, dialogues between artist and community can support that work. So, is collaborative art be a social act or a kind of art? It is an eternal dispute and both Kester and Bishop have their own arguments. But in my opinion both collaborative and individual movements can be rebellious, meaningful and political. I am only against the art that is directed and manifested from a single mind when it is acted by participators.