So through this process I have come to question whether I am looking at artists who use social practice, or those who just do public art. I found this amazing article which asks a couple of key questions regarding this art form to various artists working in the medium. Unfortunately, I cannot find where it came from.
Essentially, many of these artists define social practice as a kind of art making that involves interactive participation. One artist states that social practice should consider human relationships and the larger society. Public art on the other hand, can just involve public space. These artists (in the article) are interested in engagement that can happen without a gallery or museum.
Further down in the article, Mierle Laderman Ukeles says, " I have long been critical of what we call public art for a long time, because I think it jumps to space first and often stays there, before opening itself to people. Social practice is a way to get people in there from the beginning."
Now, I question whether social practice art then becomes inherently activist, because it is asking us to reflect on the larger conditions of life through the participation of other people. Public art can escape that because it is about the space it occupies.
Feel free to comment. I'd love to start a discussion about this!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMay be helpful. Claire Bishop articulating the notion of the social turn in art practice:
Deletehttp://onedaysculpture.org.nz/assets/images/reading/Bishop%20_%20Kester.pdf
All art is social since it involves the act of a social being, and all art is public if it involves the notion of reception.
ReplyDeleteSo what specifically defines these fairly recent art historical terms, social practice and public sphere, is context, intention, temporality and the relationships the artist(s) are trying to dialogue, or elicit.