This article is written after藝術家在社區可以做些什麼 by老B posted on 2016-04-05. It is a discussion of his ideas from my point of view. Though 老B does not reject the role or the skill of so-called ‘traditional art forms’ (painting, singing, dancing and etc.), there is no clear indication of how these skills might be more than charitable work. That is the area that I like to discuss. I believe that there is a unique role for artists who continue to focus on their art form.
His full article can be assessed here: http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1041625
For reference, his proposal are summarized by these 5 headings
- 為社區進行「社區文化及藝術資源考察」
- 強化社區意識和社區凝聚
- 促進社區溝通，直面社區內部矛盾
- 令藝術成為社區行動和社區未來想像
- 為社區創造及積累藝術資源
老B’s proposal is representative of the changing roles of artists engaged in the society in Hong Kong, part of a worldwide trend where the newer concept/practice of ’community cultural development’ CCD (社區文化發展) is gaining greater importance over the more tradition concept/practice of ‘community art’ (社群藝術).
“Community arts practice is based on the belief that cultural meaning, expression and creativity reside within a community, that the community artist's task is to assist people in freeing their imaginations and giving form to their creativity” (Goldbard, 1993)
Arlene Goldbard wrote in 1993 to advocate the recognition of the historical development and the impact of ‘community art’. At that time, she defined ‘community art’ to be “based on the belief that cultural meaning, expression and creativity reside within a community, that the community artist's task is to assist people in freeing their imaginations and giving form to their creativity”. Secondly, it is that “collaboration between artists and others is central and necessary to the practice of community arts”.
Interestingly, Goldbard published in 2006 the book New Creative Community, where she find the term ‘community art’ not useful. Instead, she proposed the term ‘community cultural development’ CCD (社區文化發展). She explains the term in the below passage:
Community acknowledges its participatory nature, which emphasizes collaboration between artists and other community members;
Cultural indicates the generous concept of culture (rather than, more narrowly, art) and the broad range of tools and forms in use in the field, from aspects of traditional visual- and performing-arts practice to oral-history approaches usually associated with historical research and social studies, to use of high-tech communications media, to elements of activism and community organizing typically seen as part of non-arts social-change campaigns; and
Development suggests the dynamic nature of cultural action, with its ambitions of conscientization…and empowerment, linking it to other enlightened community development practices, especially those incorporating principles of self-development rather than development imposed from above. (Goldbard, 2006, 21)
It is not difficult to recognize that ‘community art’ is primarily an artistic activity in a community, whereas ‘community cultural development’ consists of a range of activities requiring a wide range of skills beyond art. This concept is widely adopted in America and Australia (Australia has a government department in charge of community cultural development). Why is CCD more attractive a concept than ‘community art’?
Mulligan & Smith (2010) led a team of researchers to conduct an assessment of the multi-year, multi-location community cultural development in Australia, and explained this conceptual shift, that Goldbard’s transition from the term ‘community art’ to CCD is motivated by a drive to unify the diverse practice of community cultural work, of which community art is only one aspect. Why? To coordinate in long term the skills, resource and effort of everyone involved in community work, including the community artists. It is very difficult for small groups or individual artists, farmers, social workers or business owners to work alone. Working together in coordination is much more effective.
Based on the above description, it can also be observed that many projects can be categorized under both socially-engaged projects and community cultural development, such as 活化廳and 啟德河綠廊社區教育計畫 and in Taiwan the work of好多樣工作室 and 竹圍工作室. The work of these projects fit in various ways the 5 roles proposed by 老B.
Even though such a method has helped to advance community work all over the world, I believe that the concept of ‘community cultural development’ cannot replace the concept of ‘community art’. They are two different things that function together, but they are not interchangeable. 老B’s proposal asks for artists to learn and use skills that are usually beyond the core skill set of artists. Is this a problem? Certainly not, I strongly support that all artists should pick up additional skills so that they may contribute to communities in fuller ways. In addition to the contributions explained by 老B, doing these works enriches the artists themselves, enabling them to create better art. There are numerous artists who have dedicated themselves to learning these other skills and became proficient in these areas.
However, feeling that painting or dancing is now irrelevant in the face of injustice and human needs, some artists have gone as far as to reject the value of their artistic practices. Therein lies my concern, because it would be unfortunate and detrimental to our society if artists’ stopped using their expertise in the visual and performing arts.
What does a community need? If we consider that community is made up of individuals, then the well-being of each individual becomes very important to the development of the community. Individual well-being is strongly influenced by a person’s opportunities to use one’s senses to interact with the world (people and nature) in practical, creative, meaningful and sustained ways. Art has a unique advantage in facilitating this human need. And when we consider community as a collection of human interactions, strong communities are made up of strong people with strong connections.
It is not that art (expressing things) is more important than farming (growing things) or education (learning things) or engineering (building things) or economics (stewardship of things) and etc. All these dimensions are connected but not reducible to each other. The 5 tasks that 老B proposed can probably be done by people with greater expertise, for example, people trained in cultural policy, social work, farming, public administration; artists can certainly contribute to them in unique ways, but will probably take monumental effort to gain that expertise. Artists’ with their expertise in the manipulation of artistic forms, have a responsibility to take the lead in exercising it.
While I don’t oppose 老B’s proposal, I like to encourage people who feel that art is powerless in affecting the society to think back to their own experience: How has art contributed to your personal growth, as someone who now values humanity, justice and community? If you can remember it, then bring this experience to others.
*********
Goldbard, Arlene. (1993). Postscript to the Past: Notes Toward a History of Community Arts
http://www.darkmatterarchives.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/GoldbergCET...
Goldbard, A. (2006). New creative community: The art of cultural development. New Village Press.
Mulligan, M., & Smith, P. (2010). Art, governance and the turn to community Putting art at the heart of local government. Globalism Research Centre, RMIT.
http://mams.rmit.edu.au/fc1d0uu0zhpm1.pdf