Art and Community Development: Community Art: Public Art

Making Exact Change: How U.S. arts-based programs have made a significant and sustained impact on their communities, A Report from the Community Arts (Cleveland, November 2005)

field of art-based community development has shifted from focusing on beautification, quality of life, and community animation in describing their work to addressing conflict resolution, public safety, economic development, and community revitalization
methodology of research involved research review, field survey, site research, case studies

case studies should be attached in picture

community art defined as "art that is made with, for, and about the communities they serve"
findings

cross-sector arts partnerships produce expanded definition of success; expand the "we" involved
productive community programs have a good organizational and support structure, are patient and adaptive, promote partnerships and networking, value process as much as product, celebrate their history, practice community building
commitment to community can be shown through reacting and readjusting based on community feedback
community arts are often considered in terms of community cultural development (help developmental and aesthetic goals)
community arts programs produce leadership development as a natural byproduct
commitment to community engagement as responsibility not strategy; community relationships are integral to art production and presentation
mission values informed by practice
involve multiple generations
emphasize trust and respect
pursue sustainability
work really is relationship-based: work is community-defined
ownership should devolve to community
learning for leadership/staff happens on the job; non-traditional hiring practices strengthen diverse workforce
communities of interest and program intentions are clearly defined
real-estate ownership provides stability and credibility
free-labor is expensive
addresses lack of research and evaluation
high turnover of labor--people get burned out; there's few examples of stress- or trauma-mitigation programs for their staffs
leadership transitions can be difficult

discussed possible further steps to delve deeper/expand research and improve the support structure for community-arts programs
appendix includes questions and survey materials used when conducting research

“Arts Programs for At-Risk Youth: How U.S. Communities are Using the Arts to Rescue Their Youth and Deter Crime” (Americans for the Arts)

claims that arts programs can help youths find their hidden talents build critical self-discipline, communication and job skills
details problems that face teens of today, including school dropouts, violent crimes, and gun possession
claims arts programs are more cost-effective approaches than other traditional programs (Midnight Basketball, boot camp)
focuses most programs on positive development (don't correct problems, give kids the tools to correct them themselves)

improvements/new skills for youth should have long-term benefits
fix predicators to fix the problems

did a longitudinal study of 25,000 students; found that arts lead to greater success in school, regardless of economic status

impacts:

decreased truancy
increased percentage of high school graduates and college-goers
decreased levels and intensity of juvenile crime; fewer incidents of repeat criminal behavior
improved youth's attitudes about themselves and their future

what draws youth to these programs?

thrill of creative and artistic expression

address similar needs of graffiti in this way

community recognition of their work
learning of new job skills
use of arts as a means to communicate difficult thoughts and emotions

many federal agencies will fund arts programs for at-risk youth
features "5 steps to get your program off the ground"

involves reaching out to other organizations and community members and seeing what's already out there--particularly to see if there's a group already doing what you want to do or a group who would be beneficial to partner with

Art spaces, public space, and the link to community development (Grodach, 2009)

argues that art spaces function as public space and that these spaces community development potential can be expanded with greater attention to this role

for the most part, all of these art spaces are indoors, which is a different conception of public art spaces that what one might normally imagine
spaces serve as art school, resource and outreach center, and community gathering space in addition to presenting art; work closely with local artists and communities; build upon local assets, generate economic revitalization, and assist in the development of artistic careers
conception as public space can be problematic as public space can bring certain groups of people together while sometimes excluding others

inclusivity in public space is difficult to actually achieve

by strengthening the safety and attraction of their environments, public art spaces can then prompt economic development as a result of the community development and bonding this brings about
attributes of public art spaces

mission statement of these spaces sets the stage for understanding its public space characteristics
variety of programs in facilities designed to handle multiple activities

active and diverse schedules even in places that can't hold events for large numbers of people
often will use space for community meetings and special community events

partnerships with local organizations further engagement with community; some also form partnerships beyond their own community
location: most have not built their own building; many have adapted to older buildings

because of high rent prices, most cannot afford to be in the vibrant commercial areas of cities; can sometimes be perceived as being in dangerous areas even if the spaces themselves are free of crime
location is crucial in determining access and the perception of access among possible visitors

access: most are accessible via public transportation, but most are still built with access by car as the primary means; more support must be given to alternative forms of transportation in order to attract a great variety of visitors/participants

roles as public space:

attract and represent diverse audience
create opportunities for community engagement and interaction within and between groups

even those that don't come together in production can come together in space

provide venue for underrepresented groups to enhance their visibility
become a nucleus for more individualized communities
generate local economic activity

can strengthen and reinforce social networks in wide arts scene
can attract people to a neighborhood who will then spend money there
most successful when there is a clustering of compatible activities in terms of economic and social activity

can enhance perception of a surrounding neighborhood as a safe place

weaknesses as public space:

some unintentionally isolate themselves from their surrounding community
some try to appeal to every possible interest group and, in the process, risk alienating important constituents
diver programming does not guarantee broad representation or that different groups will interact
accessibility is a major concern, especially in terms of transportation to the space, handicap accessibility, perceived lack of safety of the location, and the need for family care/activities

Public Art and Urban Regeneration: Advocacy, claims and critical debates (Hall and Robertson, Jan. 2001)

public art claims: help develop sense of identity, develop senses of place, contribute to civic identity, address community needs, tackle social exclusion, possess educational value, and promote social change

also contribute to local distinctiveness, attract companies and investment, have a role in cultural tourism, add to land values, create employment, increase use of open spaces, and reduce wear and tear on buildings/lower levels of vandalism

1980s: vast expansion of arts infrastructure, became more linked with public sector

"percent-for-art" policies

heavy criticism as "corporate baubles"
doubts about equitable economic development and art's endorsement of come environmentally damaging and socially exclusive development
developed on economic basis

local authorities and independent commissioning agencies commissioning public art
communities and social activist groups committed to communal regeneration

developed on social basis

public art: "It's about community building, not simply building something for the community"

shift in function to deal with aspirational values of community and constituencies
four values fundamental to community development: shared history, identity, needs, and aspirations
can promote senses of community and, in practice, actually strengthen community ties by bring people together in the process of its creation
in addition to "static art," festivals and other arts project have similar effects
public art as catalyst and conduit for generation and communication of social discourse
participation is key in social development claims

ability to develop sense of place can be founded on commemoration of events or aspects of local history; can also create unique physical identities for certain spaces

strengthen the bonds between people and place to strengthen the bonds between people
critique: some people may feel excluded based upon what is being remembered/celebrated

questionable if public art has the ability to create a unifying civic voice
public art can address physical and some economic and psychological needs of communities
possibility for public art to be exclusive, though they can in some ways be inclusive in their process, and this usually makes them seem less exclusive in their presentation
public art projects can have an educational value, either by having educational programs or having art work with an educational capacity on its own
provocative public art is said to promote social change, often by raising awareness of certain issues
four broad critiques of public art:

lack of satisfactory evaluation of the claims of public art and of a rigorous critical apparatus
essentialism of much advocacy
lack of critical intervention in much public art practice
fundamental flaws of the technocratic advocacy of public art

also:

complains about the blandness of some public art; in trying not to disturb anyone art which isn't particularly appealing to anyone is created too often
discusses exclusionary ability of some corporate public art

need for research on public art to address empirical, policy, structural, civic, and ideological questions

Just Art for a Just City: Public Art and Social Inclusion in Urban Regeneration (Sharp et. al., 2005)

addresses how public art can be inclusionary/exclusionary as part of the wider project of urban regeneration
exclusionary public art in the colonial city

art that celebrates imperial control, fosters political reaction and the will to de-commemorate alien rule
can sometimes lose its meaning with the passage of time

public art often masks the political outcomes of its generation and presentation; posits itself as politically neutral
inclusion: should it be an end or a means to an end? under what conditions does it contribute to a sense of democratic ownership over the inscription of urban spaces?
public art: art which has as its goal a desire to engage with its audiences and to create spaces--whether material, virtual, or imagined--within which people can identify themselves, perhaps by creating a renewed reflection on community, on the uses of public spaces or on our behavior with them

focus in this paper is on visual public art

in addition to typical claims of public art, mentions that authorities can use public art to signal their willingness to deal with social and environmental problems

question of whether public art which "settles" conflict actually enhances the community
critiques public art's trend recently to avoid controversy

problems of exclusion

urban economic restructuring is often accompanied by deepening socioeconomic inequalities
there's currently no real proof that public art produces social inclusion
characteristics of (ideal) inclusive city

gives expression to multiple and shifting identities of different groups
avoids the cultural domination of particular elites or interests

inclusivity is important al the various stages through which participation in the public art process can take place

Can public art make urban development more just by addressing the following issues?

non-recognition: reclaiming place and recognizing the past

public art does benefit from its visibility, use it to remember/validate histories/marginal groups
important to remember that, like notions of community, artwork can have the ability to transcend specific geographical locales
should include people in product and practice

disrespect: giving voice, countering the stereotype, and rediscovering the margins

marginalization results in both invisibility and inaudibility
giving people a voice in and ownership of public art can help to empower them and to make the artwork more sustainable

can be hard to get multiple voices involved in the process to agree--problematic

involving communities fundamentally in the process has a much greater effect than just asking them for their opinion

difficult to achieve at the city-wide level

public art can rebrand a city's image
danger of gentrification as community becomes re-aestheticized

cultural domination and the arts of resistance

claim that "city beautiful" is constructed to hide incompatibility of development with a free society
problem of where public space is--can any space actually be inclusive?

resistance and regeneration

graffiti and vandalism is a way that those who have been passed over by regeneration can write themselves back into the landscape, refusing to conform to the new urban order; possible that public art can also fulfill this role
attention should be paid to issues of economic redistribution

problems of process

division between public art initiated by authorities and grassroots approaches is messy
question of what responsibility artists should have to the community in which their artwork will be displayed

some artwork interferes with daily life, can't be avoided as art in a gallery can

context and community involvement are very important

lack of research

hard to outline methods of "good practice," provide credibility to claims about social impact, and make affirmations of what constitues a "successful" intervention
lack of significant dissent on certain forms of public art may be read as support for change, but it can also be understood as false consciousness--i.e., the way in which the art was produced/presented convinced citizens that their interests are equivalent to those of dominant economic classes

"The capacity of public art to foster inclusion is at best partial, able to address symbolic more than it is material needs." (1021)

Questions/Comments

what happened during the past 25 years to change the intention/goals of community arts organizations, i.e., the impacts they claim they're having? was it because that's what funders were responding to?
Why exactly are arts programs more cost-effective forms of programs designed to benefit at-risk youth?

since these are mostly positive programs, youth not considered to be "at-risk" for the most part could benefit from these programs just as easily--great way to form job and leadership skills and have an outlet for creativity/expression
the "hidden talents" these programs help youth to fine do seem to be more than creativity; does it hurt these programs to focus on the other benefits, as many have to do in order to receive funding?
How do the impacts of these programs affect community development?

possibly... safer environment, greater opportunities for employment (higher academic achievement and job skills), and (depending on the program) community clean-up and beautification

If art spaces do indeed function as public space, how should this aspect be promoted in order to make more people feel invited into the space and feel like it's a place for discussion and collaboration? What are ways to foster inclusitivity or, more importantly, to make different groups of people gather in one place at the same time?

should all community arts programs focus on bridging the gaps between different groups of people? or should they focus on one role of community outreach/partnership/involvement?

How can public arts spaces in "dangerous" areas prosper? How can they create sustainable community development?
What exactly are the dangers of technocratic advocacy of public art?
What ways other than process can community be involved in public art? What other opportunities are there for collaboration or more simply bringing people together?
How can public art begin to address material needs over symbolic issues? Is there a way for the symbolic to actually have effects on the material? If so, how can that be promoted?
What responsibility do public artists have? How can they make art for a community without creating "bland" art? Is there a way to make interesting and unobtrusive art? How does the actual art, regardless of its process, impact the community?
Is there any way other than luck to have art-based cultural/social/economic development without gentrification? At what point does "people being attracted to the community and spending money there" become a problem of gentrification? Can a balance be reached?

Art and Community Development

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Community Art: Public Art - Week 7

No comments:

Post a Comment