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?