The first SocialSocial was held on November 12, 2014 and included nine participants from the fields of community activism, social work, public education, security, health care, AIDS activism, and science.
SocialSocial Session 1, led by Norene Leddy + Liz Slagus
Session 1 Collaborators
Kristin Angevine: Social Work Student, Community Activist (Jersey City, NJ)
Sherry Ayres: 3rd Grade Teacher, Ann Street School (Newark, NJ)
Sascia Bailer: Graduate Student Fellow, Vera List Center for Art & Politics (New York, NY) *Documentation
Sarah Cocuzzo: Senior Program Manager, Peer Health Exchange (New York, NY)
Jude Desgrottes: Fire Safety Director, The New School (New York, NY)
Derrick Flowers: Program Manager – Outreach, AIDS Service Center NYC (New York, NY)
Logan Gray: Science Researcher, Activist (New York, NY)
Evelyn Rivera: Social Worker, Community Activist (Jersey City, NJ)
Erin Thelen: Public Programs Manager, NY Hall of Science (Queens, NY)
Session 1 Sponsors:
– The Social Social Session 1 was made possible by funding from the Art and Social Justice Working Group, a collaboration with the Vera List Center for Art and Politics and A Blade of Grass.
– Special thanks to A Blade of Grass for the generous donation of their office space for the event.
Documentation from Session 1:
- Statements from the participants in their own words answering the question: What does social practice mean to you, and how does social justice play a role? Interviews conducted by Sascia Bailer.
- Core concepts/tenets of socially engaged art:
- Work produced by the participants in response to: What would be your elevator pitch for socially engaged art?
- Lessons Learned:
-2.5 hours is not enough to talk about the art and fully craft ideas for future use. We highly recommend spending 3 or more hours and including childcare if possible.
-Stipends are appreciated (and were essential to some participants) especially if childcare and food are not included. Most participants were very excited to be part of the conversation, credited as collaborators and compensated. They viewed it as a learning experience, and appreciated the recognition of their time and participation.
-We began our session by going around the room and having each participant state their job, how they work with the public and any notable strategies they employ when engaging the public. We would love to see this documented and expanded on in future conversations about engaging different publics.
– We were able to cover the general tenets of socially engaged art and discuss projects, but with more time we would cover a different and wider range of projects and really dig into the efficacy and relevance of the work to the social issue(s) being addressed.
-“Social Practice” as a term is incomprehensible to those outside of the art world. Our participants brought this up unprompted, and universally preferred “socially engaged art.”
-This work IS accessible. It resonates with people and provokes positive reactions when there are conversations around it. “This is not art!” was never said, instead participants were really excited, and commented that “this is the kind of art I can get behind” and “we need to tell people about this.”
-Joseph Beuys and Conflict Kitchen were the most-discussed artists/projects.
-Our conversations frequently came back to the “openness” inherent in this work, both in access (usually low or no barriers to entry) and the way that potentially inflammatory issues were addressed (without a fixed outcome, that this work “provokes thought but doesn’t tell you what to think”).
-The participants suggested that we should do more sessions with different ages (children and seniors were not represented in our group).
-There is a need for this type of forum: the experience of being in a room to talk about socially engaged art for the sake of art is a rare thing, but an exciting prospect for those who don’t work in the field. It is also a relevant to the field to listen to some of the responses from the publics that this work strives to reach.
-Everyone from the group was willing to come back and participate again, even without financial compensation, as long as childcare could be covered.
-We are really excited to continue this dialogue, and working on ways to include participants in future discussions (regular meetings, attending lectures/events together, or dinners).