Participatory Action

The participatory action that I thought of is a type of flash mob but one that viewers could participate in. The theme would be a house party and the location would have to be a place with a lot of foot traffic. It would have all the things found at a house party like food, loud music, drinks (not very legal, but art has no bounds, right?), etc. but since it's outside and we would want to make it apparent to viewers that it's supposed to represent a party of some sorts, confetti, silly string, and party favors would be dispersed. Hopefully others will join in too.

Rule one: Don't explain to others what the motive is (if there is any). In your mind, this is just a party and everyone's invited, so you would have to explanation to give to viewers.

Rule two: Music has to be upbeat and loud, and everyone has to keep moving, keep dancing, keep active, or else it just seems like a mob is forming.

Rule three: Respect others and others' property because, again, it may be viewed as a mob (the bad kind).




RE-DESIGNED VERSION:

I'd keep everything the same with the addition of the "potlatch" system in place. Everyone can bring something that they feel will help in bring individuals together and unifying everyone. For example, I'd bring those "Chinese finger traps" with the intention of linking pairs (or groups) together.

Do Re Mi Flash mob

I believe someone brought this video up in class. It's kind of neat.

Remix Links

Two remix-related links that everyone should check out:

The Barbie Liberation Organization took talking Barbie and GI Joe figures and switched their voice boxes, repackaged them and put them back into stores. A commentary on gender as a social construct from a feminist perspective, the uproar it caused is rather interesting.

Girl Talk is a remix artist who uses other artist's work and remixes into something wholly original. It really brings to light the issues of appropriation and copyright laws as he's never been sued by the artists he samples but is always in anticipation of such actions.

Class Scribe 9/8

Today class started off with several questions that framed our reading about participation:
1. What is art?
2. What isn't art?
3. Is art simply self expression?
4. Can everyone be an artist?
5. What is the role of politics in art?
6. What is the role of technology in art?

We then discussed Marxist theory. Marxist theory was created during the industrial revolution as workers were being grouped into the assembly line style of doing jobs. Rather than being masters at a craft, workers skills were fragmented and they did just a single piece of a larger job. Workers thus became alienated.

1920's
Dadaist: Anti-art
During this period art began to distance itself from naturalism and realism because those sectors were being taken care of by film and photography. Artist during this period began to experiment with the nature of art and used new mediums to make it, such as collages.

During WW1 dadaists responded to the issues of war that made the war machine more powerful than ever before, such as high speed communication through radio and aircraft. They refused to participate in the war and embraced the idea of cultural trauma which shocked the bourgeoisie.

Futurists
Comprised of Italian artists such as Marinetti, futurists were more fascist. They worshiped technology's speed and destructiveness. They also made art out of everyday life. We listened to a Luigi Roussolo song (ubuweb) made from the sounds of various modes of transportation.

We then looked breifly at the 1960's.
1960's
Everyday life was once again a common theme. Happenings started, well...happening, as an alternative to theatre. Happenings had no obvious plot or philosophy, were improvisational, and relied heavily on the element of chance to create art and make a commentary on culture and society.

Class Scribe 98

Daniel Speers

An attempt to describe the principles of community art ends up being a political commentary on capitalism vs egalitarian ideologies. There was more positive references of Marxism in the commentary than about the topic. The last paragraph was the only redeemable section of this article choosing to champion the laymen and help us all to assume that all people are capable of understanding and appreciating art. Creating art, there I would have to disagree.

Introduction to Participation

When one thinks of art, they think of a painting or drawing done solely by one artist and this image is to be admired and celebrated for it harmony with many of the principles of art. However, this definition of art is becoming dated due the changing nature of what people actually see as art. In Participation, Claire Bishop is talking about how the arts began to develop into being participatory, but what makes an art participatory? Well, the main differences is that art is becoming more of a “lean forward” medium. As viewers of art, we are now being forced to not only act with the art occurring, but we are also asked to think about the implications of what we are seeing. Bishop talks about the Parisian mock trial of an author, and of the reenactment of the Bolshevik Revolution. These exemplify the idea of viewers taking place in the art. She also mentions a play that was designed to make the viewers not necessarily sympathize with the protagonist, but to more or less make the audience think about what the protagonist is doing. This is only the beginning of man’s participation with the fine arts. In our current era, there is a massive upheaval in participation in media. Video games are a medium defined by participation, and this is probably the reason why this is a billion dollar industry. Participation is an integral part of the gaming experience, for the developers simply make a sandbox for the gamer to enjoy. The gamer chooses how he decides to play and this is one way in which participation is differing from the older mediums. Games allow the player to truly engross himself in what he is doing, and he makes key decision that affect how the story unravels. He is in control of everything. This is contrary to conventional storytelling, where the listener didn’t have a say in what was happening. But it’s not only video games that are maximizing participation, even television is capitalizing on it with shows like “American Idol”. Viewers are actively engaging in the storytelling format. While participatory mediums allow for viewer interaction, they also make the viewers collaborators with the creators themselves. It takes both to truly the medium an art.

Participatory Art

The main difference between participatory art and observational art is, as stated by Bishops article, to reduces the distance between actors and spectators. Participatory art is meant to stimulate the audience in a manner that provokes them to critically respond to to a piece with a personal opinion or viewpoint. The original piece, as once again stated by Bishop, is more in tune with the community, and its authorship is owed to many instead of one. The statement, if interpreted by a single artist, is lessened and it dilutes the significance of the piece.
One thing in particular that struck me about this article is when the author discusses how participatory art divides its audience in a way it could not have before; a section of the audience that has the ability to respond, and a section that cannot. This idea is less likely to arise in the advent of Youtube and, arguably, cheaper video capture technology, but what I find interesting is what compells different individuals to engage in the participatory aspect (i.e., posting a comment on a blog or photo) rather than absorbing the material and moving on.

Individual v.s. Participatory art

Both individual and participatory art have been in the course of human history for over hundreds of years now; though, the participatory art back then were not as generally accessible as of today. I think that all of us are familiar with "individual" arts that date back for hundreds of years, just look at all the great art works created during the Renaissance era. As for the "participatory" arts, it probably have an even longer history than "individual" arts. I am of course, talking about architecture. Think of all of the famous building, such as the Eiffel Tower, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Great Wall, etc. All these great architectural masterpiece that stands before us today took the contribution/participation of thousands of people. I think this is very similar to the modern, more general participatory art i.e. MadV's youtube collage video "One World". Those famous landmarks were once just a design in one,or a small group of people's mind. It was once just a design, a fictial image created by one's imagination. It was not until all others (on-site superviser, accountant,workers,etc.) participate on building the design, that can become a reality. Almost like how MadV had the idea for his video One World, and he ask the world to join him and participate in this event/art. If it weren't for all those people that respond, he could never have made "One World". If it weren't for hardwork of thousands of people, the Leaning Tower of Pisa would not be here, the Eiffel Tower would not be here, and there sure ain't going to be a Great Wall. When you think about this, it seems everything in life is a form of participatory art, because everything that we've got in our life are the contribution of billions of people before us. Sure someone might argue that: that is not art. But then again, what is art? Like music, art is so judgmental and replies entirely on one's perspective of things. There is no right or wrong in art, there are only like, or dislike.

......i don't really know how to end so i guess thats it

Intro to Partipication

The main difference between individually produced art and participatory art is the intent of the artist to want viewers to take a more active role in the meaning and interpretation of a given work. Historically art works were created by a sole person with a specific vision, one that was easily intimately communicated to its audience, or left up to them to guess and speculate.

With the advent of technologies such as YouTube, Twitter, and such, the ability to see and receive feedback for a work has leapt exponentially. Indeed such an interaction means that the audience can even present during the creation and guide it towards a shared idea.

What hasn't changed however is that whether or not a work of art is with one vision and purpose or a collaboration, the interpretation of the audience can always be radically different, regardless of what time period and what available communication technology. In that sense, participation is somewhat similar.

Introduction to Participation

This introduction shows how art is viewed by Bishop, to be open for anyone and everyone to be the artist and at the same time the viewer. This is much different to how most people know art. Where one person is known for being the artist and other spectators are known as the viewers and consumers. Here Bishop wants people so see that when they are the viewers of art they can also form time to time be part of the art itself. Such as how he supports the work of Walter Benjamin. Walter states that an artist should "proved a model for the viewers so they can be involved with the process of production". Not only does this leave the viewers as artist themselves, it also leaves the art available for many different interpretations. Many different interpretations of one piece of art is why some people see the same piece of art as utterly distinctive. An example of this is when a person sees a painting and to them it looks like the artist was blind and just made a mess on the canvas, but to another person, through their eyes, it could be the most compelling and moving piece of art work they had ever seen. For that specific reason, art is unique and spectacular.

Introduction to Participation

When one experiences participatory art, they may not know who created it or when, yet there are usually strong clues that can show when a piece of art is a collaborative effort as opposed to individually produced. Art that has been crafted by multiple people usually takes on forms that the initial artist likely wouldn't have been able to think of on their own. Of course, there are millions of works of art that have been beautifully built by just one person, however working with a team (as people do in participatory art) allows for endless new possibilities to become a collaborative reality.

Modern technologies have made participatory art a far easier task to accomplish, as projects can be worked on by many peoples from anywhere in the world who all have a different creative style. In addition, many young artists who don't necessarily have the means to travel around the world to find collaborators can simply go online and post to a forum to find many people with similar interests. Modern participatory art (such as MadV's YouTube project) would have been possible twenty years ago, yet there would have been far fewer contributors, and that type of art's venue was not around at that point in time. The age of the internet is a far more collaborative era than any other before as it has opened new avenues for art to be worked on and interpreted by anyone with access to a computer.

Introduction to Participation

What are some of the ways that participatory art differs from individually produced art, historically and in the present?

The meaning of art as it stands in the present day is very different from what was considered art say 40 years ago. Participatory art requires a two way communication between the artist and its subjects. In MadV’s case, it was those who responded to his original One World video post. In the past art has been a reflection of an individual’s creativity whereas today, people are able to draw from others creativity and have the chance to partake in an art form they may have never been previously exposed to. Whether this makes present day art any less art then in the past is something that is often left up to the individual to decide. The difference between the two however is obvious in many instances. Art in the past was always left up to one creative being, rather than a mass group of people. After one grasps the concept of participatory art it is easy to understand that it has been around much longer than most people realize, the only difference now are the channels to which this art can be distributed. YouTube has created a phenomenon among internet users that allows most individual’s to create what they feel to be art, not what society deems art. Participation goes on to discuss how this trend will only become more prevalent as more and more spectators become contributors.

Class Scribe 9/3

On September 3rd, the main topic of discussion was MadV's Viral video, leading into a larger discussion of how websites such as YouTube, Blogger.com, and Flickr allow users to interact with one another like never before. We approached the subject of the statements that these artists are trying to make and how these websites allow the user infinite space to express themselves completely un-edited. Our class also discussed just what term could be used to define these websites; social network and community project were a few of the names tossed around, as emphasis is placed on users sharing their creations and receiving feedback in the form of more user created content.
Toward the end of class, we watched a video about Web 2.0 and how it is re-defining not only the growing ease of use and way we interact the internet, but how we can express ourselves, learn, share information, and communicate. The end of the video stated that we will need to re-evaluate almost everything in terms of what is capable with Web 2.0, which is the truth

Intro To Participation

"What are some of the ways that participatory art differs from individually produced art, historically and in the present?"

Participatory art relies on the collaboration between the artist and the viewer. The viewer acts as producer, for without an audience a participatory piece could never exist. In contrast, individually produced art relies solely on the artists views and experiences to bring forth the work, and then a viewer can give his or her interpretation.

Historically, art has been individual in production. The reading states that during the 1920's there was a rise in participatory art, and again during the 1960's. This form seeks to draw feedback from the audience, which in turn changes the piece itself and allows the audience direct influence over the art. This is significantly different than viewing a painting or sculpture in a gallery, where a person may draw their own interpretation of the piece but it will never change the essence of the piece itself.

Art always seeks to achieve new levels of expression, and by engaging the audience in a way that actually allows them to participate in artistic creation we can open what was once considered a private experience shared with the world into a collaborative experience. This participation is something that I can see playing a part in the area of new media as well as filmmaking in the 21st century.

Participatory Art

Participatory art differs most apparently from individual art in the method of its creation. Individual art is not made with the audience in mind. It is made to be representative of a concept or value that the artist is trying to portray through a certain medium. In individual art, the artist is not concerned with the audience and how they will receive the message and we're forced into taking it at face value. With participatory art, the creator has a goal of involving the audience and making the interaction (interfacing) between the art and the audience to be wholly "interactive." Basically, the audience is as important a part of the piece as the piece itself. This is vastly different than the historical concepts of art and what constitutes art.

Historically, most art has been individual. The artist would sit down and slave over a piece of work that would be admired upon completion. There was no focus on involving the audience in the art process or the piece itself. This wasn't the aim of art. It was extremely personal.

Nowadays, audience participation is extremely important. Especially with the advent of the internet and user-generated content on websites, participation has been a very important thing to consider. There are very few forms of art these days that are individually produced. Usually, it is a group effort. Music, books, installation art, and different forms of art can have many collaborators working in unison to produce a particular piece.

I believe that Bishop's most important concept is that of community. We're all experiencing this collective humanity and its more valuable to a piece if that is addressed and that everyone can feel a certain commanality among the art. For this reason, participation art has boatloads of intrinsic value especially when it comes to bringing people together.

INTRO TO PARTICIPATION

First of all, I feel Bishop uses the term "art" in a different way than most of us are used to hearing it. I mean this in the sense that not only is it used very loosely, but also she uses in a way as to which the implications are that art itself doesn't necessarily mean that it was intended to be art in the first place. As long as there is a collaboration of some sort between separate groups of people in achieving an expirience or goal, art has been achieved. Or, at least "participatory" art. After all, I can't remember the last time I stayed in a hotel and thought to myself "wow, what an artistic experience this has been".

With that being said, I think participatory art differs mainly from individually produced art in that individual art is a reflection from the artist on a particular moment or emotion the artist had. Now while the viewers may have their own opinions about the art, the main purpose is not for the artist to hear these opinions from the audience. Now, with participatory art, the main goal is to recieve feedback and evoke opinions from the audience, which in turn contribute more and more to the art itself with each new viewpoint. For example, note the Brechtian theatre Bishop cites. She explains how it was intended to make the audience take a stand on the story (whether it was correct or incorrect) rather than leading them to believe a certain viewpoint like most theatre does. The more the audience takes up an opinion, the stronger the art becomes.

In present times, the notion of individual art is an extreme rarity. "Independent" filmmaking is hardly independent; hundreds of people collaborate to make the motion picture complete. As Bishop stated "most contemporary art is collectively produced" (Bishop 11).

Furthermore, I enjoy how Bishop makes it clear the three main aspects of participatory art: Activation, Authorship, and Community. In contrast to individualized art, I feel the main thing lacking would be the community aspect that participatory art requires, although quite obviously as their names imply.

Participation

"What are some of the ways that participatory art differs from individually produced art, historically and in the present?"

Participatory art tends to have a larger affect on society because more than one person can participate. It allows the audience to participate, to have a say. One can say that democracy is an art. Participatory art has greater meaning to the participants so the end result will have a greater impact on the audience as a whole, such as a political demonstration or a play. But a smaller work of art such as a painting or a song, can be collaborated on by several artists, but the mass public tends to only credit only one person or artist.

It is much easier in today's world to engage in participatory art than it was even 15 years ago. What we are doing here on this website is participatory art. Individual produced art is increasingly disappearing in my opinion because of the advent of the Internet. Even if we write an essay, we are still collaborating with others to get it done--utilizing secondary research and having someone or several people proofread the work. This is also seen elsewhere on the Internet in social networking sites like Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.

Individual art is open to so many interpretations...like a painting or a photograph...making the audience wonder what the artist and subjects were thinking and/or doing when the piece was created. A photograph is individual art when it is taken and even when the artist manipulates it in Photo Shop, but doesn't the art become participatory when the photographer orders prints? Someone else is creating the final product. What about when the photographer asks the subject to pose a certain way? Or is just taking a candid photo? The subjects are creating the art when the photographer is only capturing it.

All art is interconnected and is decreasingly individualistic. This post is my own work of art, but it wouldn't have been possible if this blog hadn't already been created by someone else, or if Claire Bishop hadn't written the article on Participation.

Introduction to Participation

What are some of the ways that participatory art differs from individually produced art, historically and in the present?

Individually produced art is a artist's message to the audience, coming from his/her mind, his/her ideology, his/her intent, and is meant to be interpreted by the audience. However, despite how many people view and comment on an individually produced art work, the subject doesn't change, the meaning doesn't change, the ideas behind it doesn't change.

Participatory art includes the audience, and in fact depends on the participation of the public to exist. Participatory art is a social experiment of sorts, a way to include everyone and observe how different people react in a certain environment to create a working art show. The 60s had many instances of participatory art through music, dancing, and even a shopping experience with garage sales. Today, participation art includes youtube videos, such as the MadV video we viewed in class. While that was one artist's creation, it depended on the participation of many youtubers. Another example, however low brow this art could be seen, is reality tv. Certain shows, like Big Brother or American Idol, not only depend on contestants, but also audience members to participate, effecting the outcome.

While Walter Benjamin is quoted as saying that thinking about a work of art in relation to its historical production can allow the audience to participate, I don't believe this could possibly be a sound argument that all art is participatory. The time and events surrounding the individually produced art will never change, and the artists' intent behind the art will never change, no matter how many interpretations there are.

Into to Participation

Participatory art greatly differs from individually produced art in many aspects. It is not just the combined efforts of multiple artists versus that of one single artist’s though, it’s more about the process of creation. Bishop points out that activation, authorship, and community have been the most frequently cited motivations for all participation art since the 1960s. Underlying these are political processes of the art’s creation. Participatory art has been labeled “democratic” or “egalitarian” since the 1960’s, with the rise of communism.It sounds to me like Rancière was beginning to spell out the phenomenon of participatory art, in that it is a natural process. He said, “Spectatorship is not the passivity that has turned into activity. It is our normal situation” (16). I agree with Rancière when he says we are all equally capable of inventing our own translations. I think along with advancements in technology, more spectators will become contributors and more participatory art will emerge, just like the One World video.

Introduction to Participation

Individually produced art differs from participatory produced art in that it is more controlled, and usually more tame. This is because the creativity driving individually produced art comes from one person. The design and style stays in the realm that the artist creates through their own ability. In the case of participatory art, the possibilities are multiplied more and more with every participant that takes part in the artistic endeavor. It's the same as making music. Regardless of talent, a full symphony will best an individual with a trumpet.

The differences that have come about between our current mediums for participatory art and previous ones is the sense of togetherness we get from technology. In this day and age we are never alone. Along with that, we are always in an opportune place to communicate and express ourselves artistically with people all over the world, just so long as we have an Internet connection. In past, participatory art was more orderly, face to face, and planned. People had to travel to meet one another, and upon reaching the common destination, they were face to face with their partners. Modern technology makes it easier to participate with others because it can be done from the safety of our own homes and anonymously. With that convenience, participatory art takes on a new form in its unexpectedness, and significantly larger community.

Introduction Participatory v. Individual

Participatory Art allows the audience to be included in the piece that is being created. While individual art is created by one creator and is open only for his or her interpretation. These both found within the introduction, but isn’t art in general open to interpretation from the viewer as well as the author or creator? When you visit a gallery or an art show purchasing individually made works the artist doesn’t necessarily tell you what he is trying to say. It is left open for the consumer to interpret, see what they see, and feel how they feel. This is what may swing a person to purchases apiece of artwork not how the individual artist feels about it. In a way the two types are similar to each other in which really all art is open to interpretation by anyone person. That is what makes art so special.

Intro to participation

Participatory Art is produced with intent for more the social interaction, as well as an underlying message, while individually produced art lacks real human contact. Unlike individually produced art, participatory art closes the gap between the artist and the community, in fact one may not be able to differentiate artist for participator. Participatory art also has much more of a social impact because it involves the community.
In regards to the past and present each category has come a long way. Participatory art has become milder than in the past, and also it was more organized, having a distinguished leader and obvious followers. Individually produced art has become more acceptable and is no longer guarded by an abundance of rules. Both forms of art in reality have both moved in the same direction, where they are in more nonchalant stages, and have become more asseciable outlets for people to express themselves.

Introduction to Participation

"What are some of the ways that participatory art differs from individually produced art, historically and in the present?"

Individual art is produced either with an intensely personal meaning (perhaps never intended for display or critique), or for the intention of raising awareness, invoking controversy, disseminating a message, or sparking conversation. Participatory art, on the other hand, takes the meaning of the message to an entirely new level compared to its socially passive predecessor. By allowing for and incorporating the efforts of more than one or two people in its creation, participatory art becomes a group effort that is created, justified, and supported by a community.

The more people that believe in a cause or belief, the greater the spread of the message. Just like a grassroots organization, this artwork can take new shapes dynamically, by receiving input from members of the community in response to what's happening in the world and their local environments.

In the past, participatory art was more aligned with what is known today as a "flash mob," which is a planned gathering of people doing unusual activities, usually for the sake of comedy. A well-known ontemporary group who performs like this is Improv Everywhere, who broadcast their videos on YouTube. Modern and future participatory art takes more the shape of remixing and responding to media, instead of simply collaborating on one "set" project or event. In a world where the technology provides interconnectedness, we will see this type of participation become more prevalent.

Participatory art differs from individually produced art in many ways. It always has an it always will. The things they have in common are that they both involve art being done in some way. They also both have an author. However, this is where the main difference comes in. Participatory art has many authors, while individually produced art has only one. Take for example the Hooter Symphony which consisted of a "celebration of mechanic noise (factory sirens, motors, turbines, hooters, ect) performed by hundreds of participants, directed by conductors signaling from the rooftops." This is an example of participatory art from the 1920's. The music they made was not composed by one single author it was put together by hundreds of creative people. This is similar to today's community based art project Post Secret. Hundreds of people make artistic post cards that reveal an anonymous secret of theirs. They mail the post cards to one person, who then compiles them into a book. The book does not have just one single author it was put ogether by hundreds of creative people, just like the Hooter Symphony.

Introduction to Participation

I thought this article was extremely complicated. I think I got the main idea of it, so I will attempt to answer the question.

If you look at the present examples of participatory art like with Youtube and other online community websites, you notice that everyone has an opinion that may be heard. People are encouraged to add to the art, share their thoughts, or feelings and become “collaborators”. On Youtube it’s through text or video responses. On Facebook it could be through a quick comment, or status update, or even simply by “liking” someone else’s post or idea. The idea of making art something others can actively participate, has not only begun with these outlets though. The article explains of a mock trial of anarchist author turned nationalist Maurice Barres, where the public could sit in as a jury. Another example of the participatory arts in the past is the Storming of the Winter Palace, somewhat of a historical reenactment involved 8,000 performers and artists. People are no longer just an audience who interprets something and moves onto the next outlet. People can now participate, collaborate and interact with the art, and now more than ever it seems to be becoming more and more popular.

In the past

I think in order to grasp “participatory art”, its meaning and its use, you have to look at its parts separately. First look at art. What does it mean for something to be art or someone to be an artist? Art, simply put, is expression and when someone expresses themselves and their thoughts they are an artist. An artist in turn has a certain level of self satisfaction when they create something original.(Original meaning new, not necessarily all their own). No matter the message in the art, there is always going to be that sense of satisfaction; that you made something and it worked, whether that something is a good movie or good pancakes (I made bangin pancakes this morning and I was satisfied).
Next take a look at participation. Very simply, Participation as said in the text, is activation, authorship, and community.
So, connecting the two, “participatory art” must contain activation, authorship, community, and a sense of satisfaction. Take YouTube for example. Each individual post on YouTube may not necessarily be “participatory art” the whole; like “What, What, In the Butt,” it may only be participation, but when you collect each individual post into a community, as in YouTube, that is when it becomes art. It is the satisfaction of the whole, every individual helping to create a medium in which individuals can express themselves. Sort of like this blog.

Intro to Participation

Bishop cites specific differences between participatory art and individually produced art while discussing topics of authorship and creativity. She claims that shared production is "seen to entail the aesthetic benefits of greater risk and unpredictability." This being beneficial through the practice of participatory art, Bishop continues and claims, "collaborative creativity is therefore understood both to emerge from, and produce, a more positive and non-hierarchical social model." Beyond this, she makes the claim that most contemporary art is collectively produced and that participation plays a key role in the production of an artistic medium; it is used as "business tool".

The difference that came to my mind when comparing the traditional participatory art that we are reading about compared to contemporary mediums that we discussed in class such as Youtube, is the face-to-face connection that has been lost. The mock trial and public involvement of "The Storming of the Winter Palace" are prime examples to compare to the faceless connection that people make with each other through the internet, although Youtube at it's core thrives from it's connection to participatory art. Bishop highlights how "...these events moved out of the cabaret halls and into the streets," while in the end they merely just moved into their computer chairs.

Intro to Participation

The intro to Participation states that "the three main concerns - activation; authorship; community - are the most frequently cited motivations for almost all artistic attempts to encourage participation in art since the 1960s." This concept in hand with the class discussion of participatory arts via YouTube made me question as to what constitutes “participatory art” in new media. If the three main motivations for participation in art (activation, authorship, and community) are loosely applied, then one can assume posts on Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube constitute signifies art because to make posts on any of those sites and sites alike require you to be active, it gives the person some loose form of authorship, and each site considered a community of users. Although Bishop goes more in depth with the three main concerns involving participatory art, her elaboration on the subject still left broad and vague boundaries for what is deemed to be art. Through her interpretation, one could consider a house party as a form of art via its active members, collective authorship, and the sense of community, right?