Bibliography
Almenberg, G. (2010). Notes on Participatory Art: Toward a Manifesto Differentiating It from Open Work, Interactive Art and Relational Art. Authorhouse.
Bourriaud, N. (2020). Relational Aesthetics. Les presses du réel.
Cahn, S. M., Ross, S. & Shapshay, S. L. (2020). Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology. Wiley.
exchange. (2023). In The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exchange, accessed 14 Jan. 2023.
Jaegher, de, Hanne, 'The intersubjective turn', in Albert Newen, Leon De Bruin, and Shaun Gallagher (eds), The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition, Oxford Library of Psychology (2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 9 Oct. 2018), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.24,
accessed 14 Jan. 2023.
Kristeller, P. O. (1951). The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the History of Aesthetics Part I. Journal of the History of Ideas, 12(4), 496. https://doi.org/10.2307/2707484
Young, J. O. (2015). The Ancient and Modern System of the Arts. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 55(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayu097
wonder. (2023). In The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wonder, accessed 14 Jan. 2023.
After creating and performing Wat NU? in 2022 I started reflecting on the role of the performer. For Wat Nu? I was both the maker and performer.
I came to the idea of being a Performing Facilitator or Facilitating Performer.
Wat Nu? is a participatory performance in which the audience plays a big role concerning the content of the performance. Without interaction there would not be a performance.
I use my experience as a facilitator to think of the performance as a group process that requires facilitation. While performing I also facilitate the group's process. This process is an artistic process that sparks people's creativity.
As a maker that means that I am concerned with building an interactive process that the performer facilitates.
Rebecca Savory Fuller (2018) writes that performers of interactive and participatory work have two roles, namely that of the 'Architect' and 'Clown'. The architect is responsible for keeping to the structure of the performance. The architect knows what dramaturgical pilars underpin the desired experience for an audience. The clown on the other hand has to be open and receptive to whatever happens in the moment. The clown is able to improvise and play with a live audience (Fuller, 2018).
It could be said that a performing facilitator or facilitating performer has the same two roles. The performer reacts to what is happening in the space in the moment with those who are present. The part a performer is concerned with is performing, improvising, playing, interacting, connecting. The facilitator keeps track of the dramaturgically designed process. I prefer to use the term facilitator because facilitators often concern themselves with group dynamics within processes and the term already seems more related to a practice involving people. The word architect, to me, relates more to building a structure and is not directly people focussed.
Fuller (2018) describes the skills needed to be a succesfull clown are to be able to enter a 'state of vulnerability and unpredictability' and 'the sense of flexibility and responsiveness to the unfolding potentiality of their performance event.' She uses these terms to describe what the training of actors should be geared towards in order to become good at being 'clowns'. In my experience the state she describes is needed to invite people to feel at ease in participationary work. When I am willing to show vulnerability, others are more likely to as well. Being prepared to play with a level of unpredictability is required in order to be able to interact. I do not exactly know what people are going to do and how they will respond. The facilitator in me (or the archotect in Fuller's terms) will have thought of likely reactions and how to guide these interactions in a certain direction without being pushy (unless it is ironically and again a form of play).
Spotting potentiality in performance events is something that I closely link to being comfortable when improvising in interaction with a live audience. It is about having a sense of responding in a way that suits the moment. I would argue this is quite intuitive, since there is hardly any time to analyse and think before responding. I have to trust that I can let go of the predevised structure and go with that which works in the moment to then trust that the facilitator in me will find a way to touch on the important pilars in that same predevised structure.
Based on the rest of the text on this page, you will most likely get a hint of the rle of the audience. At the same time, it feels odd for me to determine what the role of the audience should be, when you (reader) are the potential audience! So perhaps, after having explored this page you will come up with an interpration of your portential role.
That is why I am leaving some room here (for now), to project your own thoughts onto the screen rather than thoughts being projected at you.
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Before looking into Relational Aesthetics and Participatory Art, I feel the need to argue for something which might seem obvious. Namely, that dance is art; fine art to be exact. There is some debate on the interpertation of fine art and which disciplines are and are not included. Paul Oskar Kristeller (1951) states that fine art is commonly understood as consiting out of painting, sculpture, architecture, music and poetry. He argues that this conception of fine art is relatively recent and was coined in the 18th century as 'Beaux Arts' by Charles Batteux. In 2015 James O. Young reacts to Kristeller's paper arguing that today's conception of Fine Art is extremely similar if not equal to Plato's definition of the imitative arts (Young, 2015). The Fine Arts are poetry, painting, sculpture, music and dance. Poetry representing all of literature. An extra contemporary addition to the fine arts is that of photography and video art. I believe this notion can be taken further and digital arts could be included as a contemporary addition to the Fine Arts.
Interestingly, the fact that Kristeller considers Fine Art to include painting, sculpture, architecture, music and poetry and depending on a writers personal views also - but less commonly - other art forms such as dance is not discussed by Young. Young clearly excludes architecture and includes dance. I wonder wether this difference is based on the interpretation of a line of historic written work on the topic or whether this has to do with a shift in cultural appreciation of different arts between the 1950's and the 2010's? In other words, was architecture considered a fine art in the 50's and no longer in the 2010's?
In my personal view it feels counterintuitive to consider architecture a fine art since it is most commonly focussed on utility. Obviously, there is a huge grey area in which utility and aesthetics are mutually important and there must be examples of architecture in which functionality is secondary.
Back to dance! Historical evidence for the appreciation of dance as a Fine Art is pleasant, however is it necessary? Even without historical precedence the visual arts and performing art(s) should be considered Fine Art. How to determine if dance is a Fine Art should rest on its objective. Just like there are paintings that are considered art and paintings that are not.
To me dance is a Fine Art when it's primary concern is its aesthetic, its concept, its emotion provoking qualities, its social or self-reflective capacity or a combination thereof. Its primary objective is not commercial succes or to be understood or to be safe. Perhaps arguing for dance being a Fine Art is not even necessary. What I need to argue for is that I am a maker working within the fine arts. More specifically, the examples I will be using that have been written on relational aesthetics and participatory art focus on visual art understood as painting, sculpting and a newer category of participatiry experiences. Dance performances can be a participatory experience. And if, in my practice, the focus is on the participatory experience of the work then dance is one of the artistic vehicles I know to use and work with. In my practice I will not exclude other art forms such as performance art, theatre, visual art when they can all contribute to a participatory experience that is relational and aesthetic.
In 1998 Nicoals Bourriaud publishes the book Relational Aesthetics to describe, contextualise and theorise about the art movement he calls relational aesthetics.
Bourriaud writes that art has always been relational to some degree. Modernist aesthetics merges form and function. In relational aesthetics the focus is on formations because the interactions between people and with other formations is what primary and informs finals shapes.
Intersubjectivity is at the heart of any artistic practice that is relational. Meaning and understanding rely on the possibility of entering into a dialogue with and within the work.
According to Bourriaud form is the structure that allows for meaningful encounters to happen. This then forms the basis for that which an artist concerns themselves with. The people encountering or entering the form enter into an exchange with the work and other people. Art explores realistic alternatives of social interactions in the present day. It does not propose possibilities, but creates an actual social reality.
An issue that arises is that it becomes difficult to talk about art, because it exists in the experience of it. It exists in its encounters. This means that the actual artwork might not be tangible and or sellable in the way that a painting could be sold.
In my view all of the above can be applied to performances, especially since building relationship is something time contingent. This also means that the process matters. Within a process there is interaction. In one example Bourriaud states how a painting is an event. In my own words I would say a painting that is relational is a step in a process designed for interaction and building relationships. I would argue strengthens my position that viewing an event itself, in my case a performance, as a process helps to set up the necessary requirements for interaction and intersubjective participation.
Bourriaud refers to performances only briefly and the remainder of his writing in seems to be concerned with other art disciplines. Or rather he leaves the form open, since he steers away from judging the quality of art on the mastery of a craft or skill such as painting or sculpturing, but on the quality of the relations art helps to form.
In the glossary Bourriaud defines relation art as follows:
“A set of artistic practices which take as their theoretical and practical point of departure the whole of human relations and their social context, rather than an independent and private space.”
In notes on Participatory Art Gustaf Almenberg (2010) describes, analyses and theorises about a (potential) art movement he calls Participatory Art.
In participatory art the main focus is on creativity. The creativity of participants and the artist is that which an artists endaevours to activate, rather than focussing on relationships and the social nature of art as Bourriaud suggests. By tapping into our creativity we potentially learn something new about ourselves and therefore about what it is to be human. There is something pedagogical about it.
In Almenberg's words:
'In Participatory Art the focus is on the experience of the creative moment and the challenge of the participant's own creativity.' It is about creating in an active sense, which in participatory art is something that is done through interaction. By being an active artform it requires ohysicallity. Without moving there would be no alteration, manipulation, active participation in the process of creation.
How to spark creativity in oneself as the artist and simultaneously the participants is the artists' biggest challenge. Almenberg speaks of the artist creating an 'asthetic "safety net"' and balancing the level of difficulty with willingness to participate. In other words, the artists concerns themselves with thinking of a way in which people are willing to participate, whatever they do is exciting and to some degree risky and open, while also guaranteeing the end result will be aesthetically interesting. I believe this is quite a tricky task for any artist and requires knowledge of people's behaviour in certain settings. It requires being able to estimate what possible actions are to be expected from people when given the option to participate. At the same time keeping the experience exciting by leaving room for autonomous choice and being able to deal with possible choices the artist had not though of.
Almenberg distinguishes Participatory Art from co-creation. To Almenberg co-creation requires initiating a project or in this case artwork together. In Participatory Art the artist is the initiator who then asks conventionally considered audiences or spectators to join in.
With the creative experience at its core, that is also the product when considering the artwork. Since the artwork is an experience, it cannot be reproduced. The resulting tengible product, the thing ending up on the wall for example, is secondary. Of course, the thing ending up on the wall can have great value and does represent the creative experience.
For my research I would like to define intersubjectivity as:
“...participating in the creation and transformation of meaning together, between persons who each have their limited but inherently meaningful, evolving perspectives on the world, each other, and themselves, through acting and interacting.” (Jaeger, 2018)
I wish to apply this definition of intersubjectivity to my artistic research both in theory and practice. This interdisciplinary definition is not applied to the arts, but forms an important starting point for Jaeger to build up her social understanding of cognitive sense-making. I would like to use the same definition as a starting point for my artictic research project, because I consider being part of a participatory performance (and performances in general) a social phenemenon. Moreover, the question what is it about? often arises when dealing with art. Dealing with art is a social and intersubjective endeavour.
When thinking of ownership in relation to art interesting questions arise: who owns the art? who owns the idea? who owns the execution? who signs?
On another level ownership can relate to owning up to your intentions, actions and behaviour.
I am interested in a shared sense of ownership:
- owning the atmosphere in the room
- owning the succes of the participatory performance
- owning the result
As a participator you are part owner of whatever is created. Furthermore, ownership comes with entitlement. It entitles participants, as individuals within a group, to have a say concerning the process. Of course, entitlement does not have to be acted upon, but I feel like it could contribute to democratisation of the creation of art. Performances are ephemeral and cannot as such be owned, however, some of the work generated within the performance could perhaps be owned?
Proof of ownership could be established by linking a name to the object. Participatory art is considered to be non-signable by nature (Almenberg, 2010). It requires participation and without it there would be no work of art. I think there should be an invitation to sign the art-work as a participant as a literal sign of co-ownership. Thereby, owning whatever result came out of the participatory process and linking names to the process, the participation and the result.
I understand joy as a psychological state in the moment that resonates afterwards and has an energising effect. In that sense it could contribute to a good life. Philosophers such as Bentham, Mill, Aristotle all consider one happiness as the ultimate goal for a good life.
After a quick Google Search on how are joy and happiness related, I realised that the results seem to focus on their differences (see image to the right).
A common understanding of the difference between happiness and joy, irrespective of the academic philosophical or psychological debates, appears to be that joy is a state of mind that is nurtured internally and lasting where happiness is an emotion that is temporary.
In my performance I would like to contribute to the cultivation of joy through a creative experience.
So then how would I define joy?
Joy is state of mind that is is nurtured from within through flourishing and can be cultivated through creative experiences.
Another ambitious definition partly inspired by Aristotle's Eudaimonia. I believe that creativity (being concerned with possibilities and creation) can spark new insights, bring out hidden desires and inspire change in line with personal and interpersonal growth. Such joy!
This word can be described in different ways. As is evident when entering 'exchange' into an online dictionary.
