Archives for posts with tag: Liverpool

Table Discussion Notes : Interactions, Liverpool. 19th September 2014 (collated discussion and thinking from all the participants in dialogue with and written up by Tim Jeeves)

How does legacy affect socially-engaged performance and artwork?

First things first

The way in which the question is worded is interesting – ‘legacy’ is typically assumed to be what follows a project (one suggested definition was that it’s ‘what comes after the evaluation’) and yet here it is at the front of the question, asking us to think on how this after-effect determines the how the project manifests or is planned.

This primacy (and perhaps the actual word ‘legacy’) could be derivative of the way in which projects are pitched to funders and, as legacy can get very rigid / limiting / fixed / centralised when it becomes an essential and measurable part of a project, maybe we should be rethinking the language of legacy: bringing it back to the intention of the art / artist?

We didn’t get time in any of the groups to really think how this shift in language could be expressed, though the words ‘outcome’ and ‘impact’ were suggested as alternatives.

Exif_JPEG_PICTURE

It’s not just funders that use this language though.

The idea of legacy was used as significant justification for the £9bn spent on the 2012 Olympics. It was this that led to the public accepting such a massive spend at a time of austerity and funding cuts elsewhere.

Although these negative effects of legacy were something that all the groups returned to, and felt needed emphasising, a number of more positive aspects were mentioned, not least the effect of intangible and personal legacies.

For instance, memories…

Two kinds of memory were noted; those which are more passive, recalled in quietude and which encourage reflection, and then there are those memories which act to trigger something very active.

Socially-engaged practice (amongst many others) can act to stretch imagination – suggesting different ways of being and thinking about things – the experience of an artwork or performance can encourage people to re-examine what they have otherwise taken for granted.

  • Legacy is another word for those relations and links that can be established within a community.
  • It can encourage rigour.
  • If, as participant, we see that it means something for the artist as well, there is greater impact. It injects authenticity into the legacy.
  • The legacy of any project can also interact with and influence other artworks; either later works by the same artist or within the broader cultural heritage.
  • There’s also a legacy in terms of language – the terms that are used to describe what has happened (or what will happen) come down to us from what has happened before.

The Legacy Table’s Final Thought…

Although there is a significant link between legacy and artistic responsibility –a few horror stories were shared of people appropriating communities to serve their own research / project ends and then ‘deserting’ them when they have what they want – if there is appropriate closure to a project, and all involved understand that as the terms of the project, then it’s worth remembering that it’s perfectly ok for there not to be legacy.

A project is allowed to end.

Exif_JPEG_PICTURE

Image credits: Sarah Spanton

https://interactionsperformance.wordpress.com/mini-symposiums/

To book online—http://www.yorkshiredance.com/bookonline

Follow us on Twitter @UKinteractions (you can join by scrolling to the bottom of this page).

Table Discussion Notes: Interactions, Liverpool. 19th September 2014 (collated discussion and thinking from all the participants in dialogue with and written up by Gillian Dyson)

How do the artists’ motivations and intentions inform /affect the impact of socially engaged performance practice?

Motivations

  • What is the engagement?
  • Can be problematic …
  • About the more fascinating – seeing possibilities

Intentions

  • Often those of other people (commissioner, patron, et al) can be imposed
  • Who is ‘in need’ of this art work?
  • The construct of ‘communities’ > based historically on ‘need’ around industry/ family/ geographic grouping
  • Financial imperative (earning a living) – exchange of our skills and knowledge
  • Reciprocity
  • Are we the artist/ makers the ones with ‘need? – you want to engage; recognise your past, understand who you are
  • Doing it for yourself
  • Well being – makes me feel ‘like I’m here’

What is engagement?

Why are there ‘subjects’ for the art project- and who are they?

How do you avoid ‘dilution”?

Do the artists and community objectives differ? – Managing expectations

Over time intentions (might) change – responsive, social, shared

Exif_JPEG_PICTURE

Impact?

  • How do participants get recruited?
  • Problems of ‘artist taking over’: need for good ground work – the organisation/ agent/ commissioner ‘holds’ the legacy.
  • Avoid artist’s ‘parachuting in’.
  • Questions around ‘targeted’ groups.
  • Put in the leg work – artist has to experience
  • Empowerment – artist and group
  • Importance of ‘liveness’ – to this process – in temporal and geographic shared space
  • The living/ embodied legacy

Key thoughts:

Be authentic – only then can work be meaningful for participants/ audience

This is about proposing different social structures  – social connectivity – challenge ‘loneliness (artist and community) – enables us (all) to get to know who I am/ we are.

Playing with overlapping frameworks  & infrastructures for socially engaged practice

Why are we here? –for change

How do we engage people? – through need

Who needs the work ?– artist and community (existent/ non existent)

How do we engage with art? – a process of social engagement – physical (live) connection

Product orientated art is less ‘engaging’

Process, liveness, located art = more socially engaging (for all parties)

It’s Ok for it to be a one off experience – legacy in the embodied, shared experience/ collective memory.

Exif_JPEG_PICTURE

Image credits: Sarah Spanton

https://interactionsperformance.wordpress.com/mini-symposiums/

To book online—http://www.yorkshiredance.com/bookonline

Follow us on Twitter @UKinteractions (you can join by scrolling to the bottom of this page).

On Friday 19.9.14, we held the first of two Interactions Mini-Symposiums, kindly hosted by The Bluecoat in Liverpool.

18 participants attended, and we had some highly engaging discussion, following presentations from Gisele Bone and Gillian Dyson, on motivation and intention and legacy in socially engaged performance, taking examples from their own practice as starting points.

Our next few posts will attempt to present some of the discussion and debate around the themes of legacy, motivation and intention, mapping a landscape for socially-engaged performance practice and more.

Exif_JPEG_PICTURE

Exif_JPEG_PICTURE

We hope that if you’d like to raise questions,  continue the discussions and tell us about your projects, that you’ll use our Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/interactionsperformance

And of course we really like you to come along to Mini-Symposium #2, at Yorkshire Dance on Weds 8.10.14 (6.30 – 8.30pm), and be part of the conversations about socially engaged performance practice, in tandem with presentations from Tim Jeeves and Dani Abulhawa.

https://interactionsperformance.wordpress.com/mini-symposiums/

To book online—http://www.yorkshiredance.com/bookonline

Follow us on Twitter @UKinteractions (you can join by scrolling to the bottom of this page).