One of the things I struggle with is accepting dissent. I am a natural born persuasive speaker and thinker. I naturally try to persuade people to see things my way and in the event that a person doesn't or refuses to even try I get personally hurt. This is an issue I have to deal with if I am ever going to work in this field or really any other field for that matter.
Another note: Dissent is good. It is ok for a group to not be in accordance at all times. Learning to see from other vantage points is an important skill. And understanding someone else's view does not have to threaten our own views. In fact that is the key to learning to peacefully co-exist with other cultures that are different from our own. Agree to disagree.
These are some rules I have come up with in order to successfully communicate with a diverse range of people. I'm sure I will add more as my life continues:
1. Not all people are the same.
This one is a no-brainer, but is so easy to forget. Which is ironic since so much of community art is celebrating the differences that make people and cultures diverse.
2. There is no universal understanding of the world and our individual relationship to it.
The way I see the world and my relationship to it, is not how my roommate sees the world and her relationship to it. It is not how my mom sees the world and her relationship to it and it is not how most of the people in this universe see the world and understand their own individual relationship to it. This does not mean I am wrong. It does not mean they are wrong. It is not worth losing relationships with people to try and force my understanding of the world on others. I need to remind myself of this. Often.
3. Sometimes it is ok to let the other person "win."
4. Arguing about personal opinions is a waste of time.
5. It is impossible to discuss things with someone who does not listen.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Identifying Issues
These last few days have been spent identifying issues and concerns. Some group discordance began about 4 days ago and questions such as, "What is the point of this project?" and "What does it change?" and "Why aren't we getting credit for it?" drifted my way. Which of course are legitimate questions that need to be addressed. We took one of our rehearsals to go back over the project specs that details clearly the objectives and the rights of responsibilities of everyone and the extra rights and responsibilities of Elizabeth and I have as co-directors. Keep in mind, we are receiving course credit for this, and the rest of the group is not.
I think this worked well. But I do not believe this will last. So now, I am trying to figure out how to make this truly a collaborative equal group experience without having anyone feel slighted that Elizabeth and I are co-directors and that ultimately we get credit (In the form of course credit) and they don't.
I believe the best approach so far has been to make time for each of the collaborators and talk to them one on one about the project. I'm not talking about scheduled meetings (although that might work too) but rather random chance meetings that happen in between rehearsals and can be manipulated to serve a pre-thought-out purpose.
Another difficulty has been finding time to meet with Elizabeth without the presence of other collaborators to talk about some issues that need not be the problems of everyone. This is especially difficult since so much time both in and out of rehearsal is spent with other members of the cast on both of our parts. And asking to talk to Elizabeth alone makes it sound like something bad is happening or a secret exists. And one thing I've learned is that secrets tend to destroy groups rather than hold them together. Especially, when people know or think there is a secret that they are not in on but other members of the group are in on.
Now, I'm rambling. So I'll stop. But ultimately some issues need to be addressed and I'm doing that the best I know how. And hope it will be sufficient.
I think this worked well. But I do not believe this will last. So now, I am trying to figure out how to make this truly a collaborative equal group experience without having anyone feel slighted that Elizabeth and I are co-directors and that ultimately we get credit (In the form of course credit) and they don't.
I believe the best approach so far has been to make time for each of the collaborators and talk to them one on one about the project. I'm not talking about scheduled meetings (although that might work too) but rather random chance meetings that happen in between rehearsals and can be manipulated to serve a pre-thought-out purpose.
Another difficulty has been finding time to meet with Elizabeth without the presence of other collaborators to talk about some issues that need not be the problems of everyone. This is especially difficult since so much time both in and out of rehearsal is spent with other members of the cast on both of our parts. And asking to talk to Elizabeth alone makes it sound like something bad is happening or a secret exists. And one thing I've learned is that secrets tend to destroy groups rather than hold them together. Especially, when people know or think there is a secret that they are not in on but other members of the group are in on.
Now, I'm rambling. So I'll stop. But ultimately some issues need to be addressed and I'm doing that the best I know how. And hope it will be sufficient.
Monday, May 10, 2010
New Creative Community: The Art of Cultural Development
In Arlene Goldbard's book New Creative Communities: The Art of Cultural Development she identifies 7 unifying principles of cultural development:
1. Active participation in cultural life is an essential goal of cultural development.
2. Diversity is a social asset, part of the cultural commonwealth, requiring protection and nourishment.
3. All cultures are essentially equal and society should not promote any one as superior to the others.
4. Culture is an effective crucible for social transformation, one that can be less polarizing and create deeper connections than other social-change arenas.
5. Cultural expression is a means of emancipation, not the primary end in itself; the process is as important as the product.
6. Culture is a dynamic, protean whole and there is no value in creating artificial boundaries within it.
7. Artists have roles as agents of transformation that are more socially valuable than mainstream art world roles-and certainly equal in legitimacy.
What strikes me is that in order for cultural development through the arts to work there needs to be a change from the linear way of thinking that currently exists. In which a hierarchy exists with a clear order of good to bad, successful to unsuccessful, powerful to weak, to a more circular way of looking at the world. In which all things are connected and all have equal value. A leader cannot exist without a follower, a follower cannot follow without a leader, etc. Is it possible to look at the world this way? To change the ladders we have now into wheels? I think so, but I think it will take someone or something at the top of the ladder to make the change. Which, is unfortunate since those at the top have the most to lose when and if it topples.
1. Active participation in cultural life is an essential goal of cultural development.
2. Diversity is a social asset, part of the cultural commonwealth, requiring protection and nourishment.
3. All cultures are essentially equal and society should not promote any one as superior to the others.
4. Culture is an effective crucible for social transformation, one that can be less polarizing and create deeper connections than other social-change arenas.
5. Cultural expression is a means of emancipation, not the primary end in itself; the process is as important as the product.
6. Culture is a dynamic, protean whole and there is no value in creating artificial boundaries within it.
7. Artists have roles as agents of transformation that are more socially valuable than mainstream art world roles-and certainly equal in legitimacy.
What strikes me is that in order for cultural development through the arts to work there needs to be a change from the linear way of thinking that currently exists. In which a hierarchy exists with a clear order of good to bad, successful to unsuccessful, powerful to weak, to a more circular way of looking at the world. In which all things are connected and all have equal value. A leader cannot exist without a follower, a follower cannot follow without a leader, etc. Is it possible to look at the world this way? To change the ladders we have now into wheels? I think so, but I think it will take someone or something at the top of the ladder to make the change. Which, is unfortunate since those at the top have the most to lose when and if it topples.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Floating in a Sea of Fairytales
The Fairy Tale Project is going well. We have space, we have plays, and we have a great group dynamic. Last night we had a "let's get serious" rehearsal. It was very sobering. Most of what we had done up to this point was funny. For rehearsal Elizabeth and I asked each person to be prepared to talk about two issues that are important to them. To serious issues. Mine were child abuse/foster care and cancer. Which both have personal stories attached. What I found interesting was that all eight of the collaborators had two different issues that they wanted to talk about. I think some of the plays that are going to come out of that rehearsal are going to be really good and will serve as a great balance to all of the hysterical stuff we already have.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Holleian Symposium: Post-Presentation Response
On Monday I presented a paper titled "Finding Balance in Dialogical Work: Learning to Love You More" during the Holleian Symposium at Transylvania University. This paper uses the Learning To Love You More project by artists Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher as a case study for how a balance can and needs to be achieved between the artist, participant, and viewer in participatory art. After my presentation I was asked a few questions that in retrospective I did not address fully/did not really know how to respond at the time. So I am going to do that now. While this presentation was not a direct result of the course I am currently taking, the material is certainly related.
Question:
Since the participant becomes the artist, what makes the artist the artist? (Essentially what make the artist special)
My initial response to this question was that the artist initiates the relationship. This initiation or "first step" makes the artist the artist. And while I still hold by this I should have also responded by including this: In the LTLYM project Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher maintain their status as artist by creating the assignments. They are the ones giving the assignments. The participants are then the executors of these assignments. And yes, the act of executing these assignments turn these participants into artists, the ultimate design of the project comes from the vision of Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. If they had not initiated the project, it would not exist. They had a vision and provided the opportunity for it to grow. This is not to say that the project was not affected by its participants, because it was, but rather that the July and Fletcher developed it and then watched over it and helped it grow.
Second note:
It is up to the artist to be open to influence from participants. The artist is also capable of ruining the real worth of participatory art (which I see as the relationship formed with participants) by denying these influences. But at the same time it is up to the artist to provide a framework for which the participants can, well, participate. This is what makes the artist the artist and the participant the participant/artist.
Here are some additional things to help make some of this make more sense:
Original Relationship Between Artist, Art, and Viewer
Relationship Between Artist and Viewer in Participatory Art
Question:
Since the participant becomes the artist, what makes the artist the artist? (Essentially what make the artist special)
My initial response to this question was that the artist initiates the relationship. This initiation or "first step" makes the artist the artist. And while I still hold by this I should have also responded by including this: In the LTLYM project Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher maintain their status as artist by creating the assignments. They are the ones giving the assignments. The participants are then the executors of these assignments. And yes, the act of executing these assignments turn these participants into artists, the ultimate design of the project comes from the vision of Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher. If they had not initiated the project, it would not exist. They had a vision and provided the opportunity for it to grow. This is not to say that the project was not affected by its participants, because it was, but rather that the July and Fletcher developed it and then watched over it and helped it grow.
Second note:
It is up to the artist to be open to influence from participants. The artist is also capable of ruining the real worth of participatory art (which I see as the relationship formed with participants) by denying these influences. But at the same time it is up to the artist to provide a framework for which the participants can, well, participate. This is what makes the artist the artist and the participant the participant/artist.
Here are some additional things to help make some of this make more sense:
Original Relationship Between Artist, Art, and Viewer
Relationship Between Artist and Viewer in Participatory Art
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Photographing the Community: Sarah Hoskins
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126246445
The above link is for an article/video found on NPR's website about Sarah Hoskins, a local Lexingtonite who has been photographing the small towns that she has come to call "The Hometown". These small communities are the contemporary spaces created by freed slaves in the 1860's and 1870's.
The article raised some questions for me about community engaged art that I had not really considered before. At the end of the article the article mentions that Hoskins is considering wrapping the project up. But how can she do that? I'm not saying she shouldn't, just how does that work out. How can she stop working with the community? In the article it mentions over and over how she is now a part of those communities. She is considered family. Does the nature of her project change when she stops it? Especially if she continues to use the photographs after she stops taking them? Does the relationship switch? How does she tell the community that clearly loves her that she is done? What will the reaction be?
I think this is a major dilemma artist's face when working with the community. Gaining the trust of community takes time and commitment. When it ends it seems almost like a break up and possibly a betrayal. Yet, the an artist shouldn't have to give up one's whole life for this work. Or should they? And why or why not?
Some prevent this dilemma from becoming an issue by setting a deadline in the beginning. Documentary film makers often do that. But what happens if the trust isn't developed within that time line or if something outside of the time line occurs that could lead to more interesting information and better material for the project. Or something else comes up that could be used by the artist that would be better for the community. Doesn't that time line limit as much if not more than the potential bad break up with the community can/does?
The above link is for an article/video found on NPR's website about Sarah Hoskins, a local Lexingtonite who has been photographing the small towns that she has come to call "The Hometown". These small communities are the contemporary spaces created by freed slaves in the 1860's and 1870's.
The article raised some questions for me about community engaged art that I had not really considered before. At the end of the article the article mentions that Hoskins is considering wrapping the project up. But how can she do that? I'm not saying she shouldn't, just how does that work out. How can she stop working with the community? In the article it mentions over and over how she is now a part of those communities. She is considered family. Does the nature of her project change when she stops it? Especially if she continues to use the photographs after she stops taking them? Does the relationship switch? How does she tell the community that clearly loves her that she is done? What will the reaction be?
I think this is a major dilemma artist's face when working with the community. Gaining the trust of community takes time and commitment. When it ends it seems almost like a break up and possibly a betrayal. Yet, the an artist shouldn't have to give up one's whole life for this work. Or should they? And why or why not?
Some prevent this dilemma from becoming an issue by setting a deadline in the beginning. Documentary film makers often do that. But what happens if the trust isn't developed within that time line or if something outside of the time line occurs that could lead to more interesting information and better material for the project. Or something else comes up that could be used by the artist that would be better for the community. Doesn't that time line limit as much if not more than the potential bad break up with the community can/does?
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Viewpoints, Scavenger Hunts and Maybe Some Other Things
Elizabeth and I have been reading The Viewpoints Book: A practical guide to viewpoints and composition which I have found very intriguing. It focuses on building group connection and a non-hierarchical structure of practice. It breaks movement down into 9 elements (tempo, duration, kinesthetic response, repetition, architecture, shape, spatial relationship, topography, and gesture) and covers a few vocal elements that I haven't quite got to yet.I really like the section in chapter three that addresses collaboration. I think it applies to all collaborative endeavors:
"The word 'want' used habitually and without consciousness of the consequences, constructs a parent/child relationship in rehearsal. This parent/child relationship limits resiliency, rigor and maturity in the creative process and inhibits true collaboration.
Can the artistic process be collaborative? Can a group of strong-minded individuals together ask what the play or project wants rather than depending upon the hierarchical domination of one person? Of course a project needs structure and a sense of direction but can the leader aim for discovery rather than staging a replica of what s/he has decided beforehand? Can we resist proclaiming 'what it is' long enough to authentically ask: 'What is it?'"
-The Viewpoints Book pp 18
This is what I hope The Fairy Tale Project achieves. I hope to co-direct in a way that allows for discovery and meeting the project's needs as opposed to my own wants. To work collectively instead of forcing my own vision for the project. Are we achieving this? I certainly hope so.
Today, instead of a traditional rehearsal we organized a scavenger hunt that had people traipsing around downtown Lexington in the rain to the public library, the Lexington History Museum, the farmer's market, and third street. At each place the teams had to complete a task. I had hoped to plan it a little better but the bad weather early on this morning cut back our time to set things up. But it all worked out. I think the hunt was frustrating for some and invigorating for others. I think both are good. Frustration can be good even though it might not seem so at first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)