New Work Network

Re: Anti-social engagement

Posted by: clarety

Rachel
I was wondering (going back to your reply the other day) if you could expand a little on why you think collaboration/collaborative process should be seperated out from our discussion around socially engaged work...

Re: Anti-social engagement

Posted by: JuGosling

In terms of artists working with groups of disabled people, my main concern is that the commissioners of the work never attempt to engage disabled artists to lead this. Nor do they attempt to discover whether the artists whom they are engaging, whether disabled or not, have received disabled-led Disability Equality training and are working from the Social Model of Disability. As a result, all too often disabled artists remain without work and experience; participants remain without role models; and the quality of the activity is far poorer than it might otherwise be. To add insult to injury, this activity is then mislabelled as being 'Disability Arts' by the commissioners.

I am not saying that only disabled artists should work with disabled people, but I am saying that all artists working with disabled people should be working from a Social Model perspective, and that commissioners should make every attempt to ensure that work is disabled-led where possible.

Re: Anti-social engagement

Posted by: rachellois

Just responding to your query Clare. I think a collaborative working process is fundamentally tied to discussion on socially engaged work, but a collaborative working process does not necessarily result in collaborative or socially engaged ends.

In an earlier post I defined socially engaged art as a model of working in which the engagement was central to the work as process, but also equally as outcome and product in and of itself (although not necessarily fiscal). I use this loose definition of socioally engaged work because a lots of work that involves collaboration does not necessarily result in a collaborative or socially engaged ends. I think it is important to distinguish between the two, not necessarily to separate anything away in the discussion.

I was interested to know how the outcome of your work was socially engaged in that sense...

Re: Anti-social engagement

Posted by: FionaMcGregor

For a great company of mentally handicapped performers, check out Back to Back. Their latest show 'Small Metal Objects' at the Sydney Festival was a knockout. I think it's touring North America this year. Be sure to see this company next time it's in the UK. It blows away all preconceptions.

Perhaps the stumbling block is too often making work about the so-called handicap, or issue, or marginal position whatever it may be. Back to basics, back to humanity.

Cheers

F

Re: Anti-social engagement

Posted by: timmyfatlips

Posted by: timmyfatlips

It seems to me that much of the discussion on the various threads around this theme - which are more and more interweaving into one fascinating discussion - has a great focus on words; which are used and how they're used.

I was struck, reading Fiona's comments, by her use of the word handicap. This - echoing Ju's comments on survivors/users vs patients elsewhere - is language that would not be used by the disabled communities in the UK to describe themselves (I'm unsure about the rest of the world). 'Disabled' would be the word used over here, and 'people with learning disabilities' would be used instead of 'mentally handicapped'.

We've already had much discussion about the term 'socially-engaged' and there appears to be a tension worth exploring in the use of these words.

At one end, we have the 'get on and make art' attitude that is being discussed on the 'Politically Engaged Practise' thread or as Daniel, whilst in broad agreement, qualifies such an outlook;

"However, I cannot agree that 'As artists... we should leave the definitions/analyses to the critics/academics[/funders] and get on with making work' because if this is all we do then we do nothing to stop the rot. We need to say no, that's unenlightened, listen to this, etc."

And then at the other pole, we have the fact that the communities who this work aims to empower have very specific languages that they want to be used to describe their lives, needs and qualities.

There is a very real possibility that artists can also fall into the (to use Daniel's word again) 'unenlightened' use of definitions/analyses in which case the danger of damaging work that I was talking of earlier becomes much more likely.

It is about these groups owning the work. Through their description of it, through it's development, and through it's presentation.

Where that leaves the role of the artist, if they're not a member of that particular group, in is an interesting question.

Edited by timmyfatlips on 24/4/2008 9:56:20

Re: Anti-social engagement

Posted by: annrap

Great to hear some of the very interesting comments, I feel I have come in when a lot has been said. I don’t know if I am just repeating things but I will say it anyway.

Socially engaged practice driven by funding applications and requests for outcomes is problematic, if the focus is more on process and this process is open then is there more potential for a working process/exchange. I have just been talking to a fellow artist concerning a project with people using mental health services, in which women were invited to work with two artists with no idea of the project beforehand and how it would develop. This seems to be to be very rare, as already stated so many projects are weighted towards artists going in with an already developed idea that does not allow for collaborative development, responsibility and trust to build. In this situation the group were able to develop their own ideas and make decisions of what they wanted to do, it resulted in a video work. Even in this situation the artists found that after the group had decided on the project, they could not vision the outcome of the video, as they had no editing skills and vision of how the work would look and bringing the work together. This led to an uncomfortable ending in which the artists took on this role in discussion with the group but edited the film they would rather not have edited. Here is a well meaning project had value in exchange coming face to face with the power involved in the process of gifting, seems a little more like a loan than a gift perhaps!

I would like to support a comment made on another topic regarding the use of language. At the risk of sounding politically correct and holy holy. I notice the performers of Small Metal Objects describe themselves on their website as - a pioneering contemporary theatre company based in Geelong with a full-time ensemble of five actors considered to have an intellectual disability.


I was recently asked to get involved in a project with elderly tenants who were being asked to move out of their properties to make way for a community centre in the middle of their estate. The project did not go ahead because the organisation felt the artists would get involved in the political issues that have been raised by this possible move. This seemed like an ideal time for artists to get involved, at a point where the group were forming a cohesive group to fight for their cause and were not in a position of nicey nicey and cosy up to the council. This would have been a project that was diverse in opinions and antagonistic in its position, whilst they did very well without artists I am sure, maybe all would have got something out of them being involved too.

What I would like to ask for is a space for artists to make work that is honest, critically thoughtful socially aware and addresses the small politics and maybe bigger. At the same time I don’t think art has to always agitate or passify and I agree with Tim we don’t need to take ourselves to seriously too??


Quote:

Re: Anti-social engagement

Posted by: JuGosling

I would like to agree with the point about the importance of focussing on process when working with groups. I've participated in short-term arts projects aimed at disabled people as well as leading them, and where there is an emphasis on outcome the participatory experience is vastly reduced. The artists are forced to take a dominant instead of facilitatory role, and to dictate both the format of the programme and the outcome to a much greater extent than if the focus was on process and the outcome undetermined at the beginning. Consequently the benefits of the project to the participants are much less than they would otherwise be, and participants can end up feeling disempowered rather than otherwise. What can we do to challenge funders perceptions that projects, even one-day ones, must result in a performance, exhibition or recorded piece in order to be valid?

Re: Anti-social engagement

Posted by: DanielGosling

Hello again, Ju

You wrote:
What can we do to challenge funders perceptions that projects, even one-day ones, must result in a performance, exhibition or recorded piece in order to be valid?
(QUOTE ENDS)

In respect of actually being awarded the project it's a risky business but... tell them no, that's unenlightened, listen to this, etc.

D.

Re: Anti-social engagement

Posted by: FionaMcGregor

Uh-oh. I thought that might happen as soon as I typed that word 'handicap'. I'll declare a bias towards autism experience. My brother and his son are both Asperger's. Not in the slightest "intellectually disabled" - my nephew is completely bilingual mandarin/english. My brother speaks Chinese, Japanese and his native English. Both are fearsomely talented with numbers. Neither can communicate very well, nor empathise. And they know it. And it distresses them. And all of us who have relationships with them. If anything the correct term for the very wide spectrum of autism conditions would be 'emotionally disabled'. but it isn't exactly current is it. And yet it is widely applicable, to other neurological disorders as well. (Bloody hell, the term "neurologically disordered" sounds kinda rude doesn't it.) Meanwhile autism skyrockets in incidence ... And in support groups I've attended, and parent teacher meetings and with therapists yes, the dreaded word 'handicap' occurs. And I don't have a problem with it - it is technically correct. While we pussyfoot around terminology we become too cowardly to admit that a lot of us have a problem with these ailments themselves, if we're honest, because they are so difficult to live with. Distressing, challenging, demanding, even if also enlightening. Whatever. Lest I spend too much time splitting more hairs, trying desperately not to offend anyone ... my point was simply to draw attention to what I think is one of the most brilliant theatre groups in Australia - Back to Back - some of whose members are Down's Syndrome - not autistic. The mere existence of this company's work renders all of our words, posts forums, kinda .. obsolete ..

Go see 'The Black Balloon' my friends.

Long live art.

Fx

Re: Anti-social engagement

Posted by: annrap

Hi Fiona I totally respect your experience and am not into being grossly politically correct.

I was merely using the terminolgy of the actual group you mentioned themselves, I pointed it out as i guess they are the ones who wanted their disability voiced in the words as they describe themselves on their website, which does reference what we have been talking about. Anyway nuf said

Ann