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

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.