Week 1: Response to Kwon

Overall, reading about "Culture in Action" brought up a lot of questions on artists making and producing new genre public art. It was nice to see so many different examples of projects, what communities they involved, and their products or outcomes. Overall, Kwon sparked questions in what community and engagement really meant in this domain, and if the artist is doing a justified service in the name of art.

This quote really sparked something early on in my reading as we had started to bring up in our last class discussion about “the Couple in the Cage.” Kwon states, ““Rather than an object for individual contemplation, produced by a distant art specialist for an exclusive art-educated audience equipped to understand its complex visual language, new genre public artists seek to engage (nonart) issues in the hearts and minds of the ‘average man on the street’ or ‘real people’ outside the art world.” (107) I felt that though it is often the goal for new genre public artist to engage people outside of the art world, their work is still held to the same critical art world eye that any artwork undergoes. Thus, there is a multilayer read of the work from the commoner to the art specialist. Thinking about “The Couple in the Cage,” how do lenses work for creating meaning of the work? Does the artist make too much of a spectacle of their participants or audience? Is it ethical?

This thought also made me question, at what point does the artist negatively take advantage of or exploiting the community they are working with? The example of Reichek’s proposal really stood out with me because of the lack of involvement she would have with the Native Americans. This felt as if it was a disservice not to spend time with her partners. Yet, I wonder when artists are going into groups as the outsider, do they allot time to developing trust and building connections in order to succeed? Maybe, it is just about the fit of the person to a specific group, especially that of the site specific.

My other thought on this thread was, is there a way to measure successful interpersonal engagement? Though the emphasis is on the process and participation, there are still ways to end up with a chocolate bar, a giant hunk of rock, and mementos of what could be a successful new genre public art project. Even if there is some sort of product or outcome, it may not be a true measurement of a successful collaboration. Is there another way of showing success in the intangible?

I was also a bit upset with how Kwon first defines community. She states,  “It defines coalitions of people seeking to counter such processes of exclusion and repression by collectively demanding equal rights, greater social recognition, economic support, and political power, such as the gay and lesbian community, the Asian American community, working-class communities, the African American community, women’s groups, senior citizens organizations, etc.” My original thoughts were: Why then do we give community a happy connotation, when really it is what we find in common that excludes or represses us from a larger context? Is there value in being targeted together? Why is there no emphasis on diversity in community in public art projects? Can community include those not excluded or repressed: allies? I think there are some cases where we seek out a specific similarity or community, which causes exclusion of other groups. Are there projects that bring the smaller communities Kwon is listing into a larger one? Can there be support systems or outsiders in a community?

The other issue I had was what Kwon had listed out that new genre public art “‘...demand more artist involvement in institutional decision-making, representation of minorities and women artists, and use of the influence of museum and funding agencies to change government policies on social issues.” (105-106) Do they all have to fulfill all of this in order to be successful? I was thinking about her example of the Street Level Video project. That project doesn’t demand institutional decision-making or change government policies on social issues. It is about education and representation for a group of minorities.  I thought this project was overall successful. It maybe even possible to do it without museum or funding agency influence. Overall, it feels that public art should focus more on the needs of the community rather than larger government policies.

Overall, it was nice to see multiple examples of work in this text. I felt that Kwon had given a diverse and in depth look at some of the things "Culture in Action" has put forth. These are things that have really started a trend and movement in art today. Something now that continues to pick up momentum to redefining the genre again.