Most
awareness of the arts focuses on the final product and the outcome of artistic
process: objects, productions, performances, publications and
presentations. Mostly, the
outcomes are observation based, with audience/community invited to view the end
result of creative process, not the development or actual creation of such
work. When “creative outreach”
programs are devised to address such issues, they are most often developed and
are guided by an institution’s education department and programs. While participatory, the implemented
programs are often hands-on projects for which a group of individuals visit an
institution, are provided a set of instructions, and then create an object with
predetermined parameters.
Many arts institutions in the United States have recently presented
Social Practice projects under the guise of artistic practice, but in reality,
the focus has tended more toward problem solving for the institution (e.g., way
finding, filling void spaces of the institution, dealing with permanent
collections, trying to engage a different and often younger audience). The programs most often occur within or
upon the institution’s grounds – participation only accessible if one visits
the actual institutional structure.
Like the hands-on activities, these series are mostly delegated to the
institutions’ public programs, education or marketing staff, not led through
artist/curator vision.
How does an institution develop a new vision for Social Practice
residencies focused on the belief that the key to success is complete honesty,
trust and openness by the institution, curator and artist with all potential
collaborators and participants. An
institution that is open to flexibility and adjustment throughout a
project/residency as envisioned by the artist, leaving the opportunity for new
discoveries to develop – creating the possibilities for even greater,
successful and mutually beneficial outcomes for artist, institution and
collaborator. These rules
should apply to any institution exhibition, program or project, but they are
even more essential when working with community and artists through Social
Practice residence. Without an
honest approach, trust cannot be secured to build connections with diverse
individuals through an artist’s vision.
One major factor in realizing new and
innovative projects without pre-determined outcomes/exhibitions is seed
money. Financial support is
essential to foster and promote non-traditional approaches that are sometimes
difficult to describe and quantify.
While an institution should anticipates active numbers of participants
with each residency, is it possible for an institution to be more interested in
measuring the matrix of success, not by the numbers, but by the quality of the
outcomes.
The kinds of results that often occur at the conclusion of
a residency or Social Practice based project are not always easily measured, in
the traditional sense. For
example, attendance figures, tour numbers and budgets may not be the most
appropriate measures of “success.”
Unfortunately, these are the most common types of statistics that
funders and agencies require in grant reports, usually due immediately upon
completion of the project.
In addition to the standard matrix
measurements for such a residency program, can an institution also measure,
validate and share the success of each Social Practice residency through the
following supplementary and alternative methods: gathering of personal stories
and testimonials (artist, institution, organizations, community); presenting at
national conferences (American Association of Museums, Art/City, College Art
Association, Open Engagement, Creative Time Summit); creating web and print
based documentation (website, blog, catalogues); writing and publishing
articles in national journals (Museum and Social Issues, Art Education, Journal
of Art for Life); and direct sharing with colleagues at peer institutions.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment