Social practice art was described in the article positively, as “a stream of participatory art that tends to display a strong sociological and political bent, often in an effort to draw attention to social ills and conditions. Sometimes, these projects are meant to incite empowerment or change in a community” (3). The effects that social practice art can have on a community, and the message it intends to give to the public can be truly uplifting. These artists are trying to pull people together and involve people, for example, artist Mel Chin’s “Operation Paydirt/Fundred Dollar Bill Project,” which brings together groups of children and scientists to the issue of lead contaminated soil. Miranda Lash, curator of modern and contemporary art at NOMA, where the show remains on view through May 25, said, “the esthetic component is key, but the involvement of children is a vital part of the piece as well. Children are the most affected by lead contamination, so he wanted children to be part of the solution” (3). While many types of artists bring attention to present political or environmental issues in their art, social practice art actually allows the people who are most effected by these problems to become involved, and spreads awareness to an entire community or demographic. Social practice has made headway at the museum level as well. “Public Engagement,” an initiative launched at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles four years ago, has gotten artists and other thinkers to connect with visitors in unusual ways, for example, putting someone in a coat closet with an opera singer for a private concert. As well as engaging people, it can have amazing affects on communities, for example, in Braddock, Pennsylvania, the artist Swoon initiated a revitalization effort of an abandoned church. Ceramic-tile makers provided a new colorful roof for the building. This project, in my opinion, is a great example of how community service and art can mix together for the greater good. That project not only brought attention to the problem but also actively fixed it through art.
I also see social practice art as being somewhat of a reaction to the way art is taught in many schools, and to what type of art is expected by the public. Artists are exploring how to differentiate themselves, but also how to connect themselves. Finkelpearl thinks that the popularity of social practice today reflects a pendulum swing away from the art market. He says, “It’s a reaction against the excesses of individualism” (4). Nato Thompson, curator of “Creative Time,” thinks that this form of art is a reaction to modern technological dependence. “I mean, doesn’t any kind of human interaction that isn’t on the Internet just feel very special?”(4) he asks. Artist Pablo Helguera, who initiated the program for MoMA’s education department and wrote the book Education for Socially Engaged Art, shares his opinion: “We spend years in art school, where we are taught to explore ourselves, but social practice is completely about the opposite thing. It’s about how to listen. It’s remaining engaged with the world in an active way” (7). Instead of starting with the way a project should turn out, social practice artists first think of their intent, and open the project up to the public. Jen Delos, assistant professor in social practice at Portland State, and founder of the Open Engagement conference, an annual art an social-practice gathering launched in 2007, says, “Typically, when applying for a residency, an artist pitches a project in advance, but in this case, no one should be coming to us with fully formed projects—that should be determined by the context. So instead, we shifted the focus to have artists share their approach and their intent” (7). The piece, therefore, allows the community to help shape the direction of the work.
While reading the article and exploring social practice art further online, I noticed some that questions arose and there were some blurry areas when regarding the true reasons and outcomes of this type of art. There are many tensions involved in social practice art, especially in sectors where art and activism overlap. The article explains that, “as agents of change, social-practice projects can seem wanting: the scale is often small, the works are temporary, and success may depend on the charisma of a single artist. On an esthetic level, they can also be befuddling, perceived as too much like community organizing to feel truly like art” (8). I had this feeling when reading about Suzanne Lacy’s “Between the Door and the Street,” in which 400 mostly female participants wore lemon-yellow scarves took over a brownstone-lined block in Brooklyn to discuss issues of gender, race, and class with people passing by. This seems like a great event because it was a way to spread awareness and interact with everyday passerby, but I’m not sure exactly how it could be considered art. The same goes for Caroline Woolards’ “Exchange Café,” where patrons could barter conversation for a cup of tea. Helguera said, “it established a real dialogue,” (6) but is a dialogue really art? In the article “A critique of social practice art,” by Ben Davis, he quoted a New York Times article which said about social practice, “Its practitioners freely blur the lines among object making, performance, political activism, community organizing, environmentalism and investigative journalism, creating a deeply participatory art that often flourishes outside the gallery and museum system. And in so doing, they push an old question—‘Why is it art?’ as close to the breaking point as contemporary art ever has.” Some social practice art is much more obviously art, but may not do as much for the community. This leads to the issue of how social-practice works are critiqued, and whether they should be evaluated for the social changes they produce, for the elements of performance they incorporate, or for the esthetic qualities of the environments in which they take place. As Thompson said, “It’s not easy to talk about this work. You have to synthesize so many different things—the social aspects, what it does politically, as well as the cultural elements” (9).
Thompson also said that social practice art involves “really about thinking about process: Who does it connect? And how does it connect them? And what makes this a unique experience for those involved?” (9). Overall, social practice artists usually have the good intentions of uniting people around a certain significant political or environmental issue, and getting people involved. They aim to apply their art for the benefit of society, while creating some type of aesthetic. Some artists manage to successfully combine all the aspects of a social practice art, but the questions and critiques come in when artists get so wrapped up in the aesthetics that they do not seem to benefit a community in anyway, or they get to involved in bringing attention to or solving the issue that they forget to regard the beauty of their piece and its significance as a work of art.