collaboration and artist

The participants are creating the work through their interactions so this collaboration takes the ownership away from the ‘artist’. Or does it? If that were truly the case we would hear more about large group artworks rather that keep coming across certain ‘dialogical’ or ‘relational’ artists. The roles and responsibilities of artist, curator and critic are changing. Art works are being judged ‘ethically’ on how the collaboration takes place and how the author treats the participants. Factors that arise are whether the ‘co-creators’ are paid and how much recognition they actually get for helping with the creation and realisation of the work. How the author treats the participants is taken into consideration. As Bishop points out “Accusations of mastery and egocentrism are levelled at artists who work with participants to realise a project instead of allowing it to emerge through consensual collaboration.”[1] The critic seems to have been replaced with the curator in recent exhibitions, with very little criticism written about the work. Works have been ‘evaluated from an ethical viewpoint, (good versus bad models of collaboration) curatorial writing is concerned with fair mediation between artists and audiences so is often orientated toward ethical questions.’[2] Projects can be criticised on how the participants are treated and the way the work deals with the problem of working with race and class. It’s also important that projects celebrate the individuality and uniqueness as well as shared commonalities of the participants and their experiences.

[1] Roche, Jennifer. ‘Socially Engaged Art, Critics and Discontents: An interview with Claire Bishop’. July 2006 www.communitiyarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2006/07sociallyengage.php viewed 17/04/07
[2] Roche, Jennifer. ‘Socially Engaged Art, Critics and Discontents: An interview with Claire Bishop’. July 2006
www.communitiyarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2006/07sociallyengage.php