Blog #8: Week 7

I feel like I actually understood the Week 7 readings. As a result, my blog is quite long.

First I'd like to address the good points mentioned throughout the dialogue between Phillips and Wodcizko:

• I agreed with Foucault that true democracy can't exist without the fearless public speaker, but I also felt that some form of democracy always exists even though true democracy is a constant process.
• Public space belongs to no one and the most important speakers are the ones who haven't spoken yet. "We could give a microphone or loudspeaker to these people, but we may hear nothing." - Wodcizko
• The official record is often a "narrative of those who have succeeded at the expense of those who are vanquished" (Wodcizko). We've addressed this in class a few times and I definitely agree with the statement.
• "How do we reach a point where there will be no need for tragic memorials?" I don't know exactly how I feel about this quote by Wodcizko. I mean sure it would be nice to have art be created for happy and excited purposes, but sometimes tragic events are beyond our control and we make memorials so as to never forget the harm people had to endure.
• I feel these three quotes emphasize a good point: "...there is nothing really wrong with being used--ethically speaking--as long as there is some mutual benefit" (Wodcizko), "Collaboration can accomodate all of this richness and texture. It isn't a homogeneous notion of everyone walking in stride to some common destination" (Phillips), and "Often artists are criticized for going into a community and, either unwittingly or willfully, using a group of people to accomplish a project" (Phillips). I think they highlight the fact that a lot of good artwork is the result of partnerships, and that everyone doesn't always have to agree or get along, but they at least collaborate. Sometimes people are in it for the wrong reasons, though, too.
• I love when Wodcizko stated that he doesn't pretend to understand the situation of a community or certain people or how they feel. I absolutely hate when people come into an area they're unfamiliar with and automatically assume they know the extent of our feelings. This kind of ignorance shows that the person is missing the point of collaboration entirely.
• "...architecture is a consequence and symbol of a prevailing economic system" (Wodcizko). "We invest our hopes and desires" (Wodcizko). I feel these two quotes say something powerful. I never thought about structures this way, but it makes sense - I often see success for myself when viewing monuments that represents freedom and liberty. Looking at these structures gives me pride in my nationality and makes me want to work hard to achieve my dreams.

I found the Kwon chapter very interesting. I think it's a good goal to shift viewers from passive spectators to active art-makers. This idea is highlighted in the quote "...much of the work in 'Culture in Action' was defined not in terms of material objects but by the ephemeral processes of interaction between the local participants and the artists." This aligns with my perception that art can be simple and that the people in the projected community for the artwork should be taken into consideration. I found many points I agreed with in this chapter:

• Public art is based on placement; new genre public art is based on engagement.
• Artists should use art more to further social and political justice advocacy.
• New genre public art should celebrate the particular realities of "ordinary" people and their "everyday" experiences.
• Making art more familiar and accessible = art for the people AND by the people
• A sculpture should be seen as a function of a space or context, not the other way around.
• Politicians often use "community" entirely out of context and the people who physically live in a certain area should decide how the space and resources are used (to a degree).
• An artist with "home-team advantage" will usually have more trust from community members and knowledge about the area when starting a project.

Lastly, the projects in "Culture in Action" were planned out, had designated goals, etc., before any community partners were consulted. Projects discussed: Community of Mythic Unity (Full Circle), "Sited" Communities (candy bar, paint chart, pot making), Invented Communities (Temporary) (Chicago Urban Ecology Action Group, West Side Three-Point Marchers), Invented Communities (Ongoing) (Haha & Flood [hydroponic AIDS garden], Street-Level Video [making videos, block party]). Further, curator and sponsoring agency middlemen filtered out the projects they didn't like (instead of the community itself). I felt this was wrong and disrespectful to the areas in Chicago that these projects were carried out in.