Dialogical Art:610 final

            Since the dawn of history when man first put pigment to cave wall, art has been an integral part of human existence. Art is a way to communicate thought and idea and is a way to initiate public or private discourse. It is difficult to pigeonhole what exactly art is because subjective and can take many different forms and can be created in a limitless number of ways. From early wall paintings to the digital art being created today, humans have always found the need to express themselves creatively, often trying to define ideas and issues larger then themselves.

            In early cultures art was produced for all and was largely used in spiritual or religious practices. The artist was not yet defined and was merely a craftsperson. It was not until the Renaissance that the status of Artist was elevated. “In the 16th century the new image emerges of the artist as genius, giving to eccentric behavior, or even slightly mad. The artist also appears as an intellectual given to abnormal modes of thought, and regarded as an inspired and special individual. (Witcombe)” This image of the artist seems to linger to this day. It is an idea that the artist is different then the rest of is. While this might hold somewhat true it is dangerous to the concept and expression of art. It says that there are only a select few people who can be artists and that they need a special set of skills to be accepted in the arts community. 

            While this has held true in the gallery community for quite some time, there are several movements that seek to take back art and free it from the gallery and give it to the people where it belongs. The goal of art should be to connect people, not divide them. One such artistic movement that does this is dialogical art. There is no set definition for dialogical art because it is continuously being formed, but Andrea Assaf writes, “Dialogic art uses dialogue as an artistic medium, in a variety of forms including, but not limited to speaking, writing, and physical participation.” It liberates art from the restricted forms of drawing, painting, and sculpting. Dialogue has a vast number of possibilities therefore it is important to set up a set of aesthetics on how to judge dialogical art, this is because it is certain that not all dialogue is art. According to Grant Kester in his essay, Conversation Pieces: The role of Dialogue in Socially-Engaged Art, “the concept of dialogical art practice is derived from the Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, who argued that the work of art can be viewed as a kind of conversation: a locus of differing meanings, interpretations, and points of view.” He also states that, “it is quite common for a work of art to provoke dialogue among viewers, this typically occurs in response to the finished object.” The artist makes a piece of work and displays it. They have created the work and the environment in which it will be presented and we as viewers will try to ascertain some sort of meaning.

            True dialogical art challenges the traditional gallery setting. In Eduardo Kac’s essay, Negotiating Meaning, he says “dialogical aesthetics [are] intersubjective and stand in stark contrast with monological art, which is largely based on the concept of individual expression.” In dialogical art the content actually comes from the conversation that takes place between viewers and participants. Unlike traditional art there is no object or tangible ‘thing’ that comes out of its creation, but rather a greater knowledge and understanding among the participants and the viewers. One such example is by the Californian artist Suzanne Lacy, along with Annice Jaroby and Chris Johnson. The piece is entitled, “The Roof is on Fire,” in which Lacy gathered 200 Oakland students of African American and Latino decent, and had them sit in parked cars on top of an Oakland parking structure and carry out, “a series of unscripted dialogues on the problems faced by young people of color in California. (Kester)” Topics ranged from the under funded schools they attended, police profiling and racial stereotypes. Politicians, news media, and regular citizens were invited to walk around the parking lot and listen in on the student’s conversations. This is a great piece because it works on multiple levels and contains multiple conversations. The first is the conversation amongst the young people in the cars, who might not necessarily discuss such things in a formal manner in their daily lives. The second conversation that takes place is between the youths and the viewers. While the students are not speaking directly to the viewers, the spectators are taking in their discussions. Lacy sought to break down the preconceived notions the public may have had and show them a side of these students that they would have been unaware of otherwise. Dialogical art is closely related to activism and social issues because it can address issues and spark communication between parties that are sometimes not willing or able to do so. Our society is a fairly rigid one, where we are placed in hierarchal orders, this makes free and true communication hard to achieve. Dialogical art seeks to bring down these walls and bridge the gap. It seeks to level the playing field making all participants are equals.

            A fantastic example using dialogical art to open communication and activism was done by The Austrian arts collective Wochenklauser.  In 1994 they sought to address the homeless problem amongst drug-addicted sex workers in Zurich. The “intervention consisted of a boat outing on Lake Zurich where the collective gathered politicians, journalists, sex workers, and activists. The goal was to create an open dialogue in which participants would be able to express their views and beliefs on the subject freely. While it is difficult to get a politician to speak so openly and truthfully about a topic that could seriously affect their professional career Wochenklauser, as well as other artists, “Encourage their contributors to question fixed identities.” This “questioning” is done through “a cumulative process of exchange and dialogue rather than a single, instantaneous shock of insight precipitated by an object. (Kester)” By taking the participants out of their normal status and position Wochenklauser effectively levels the playing field, allows everyone to speak as equals and begins an important change for these people.

            There are many other artists who take this approach. But it is not just limited to the taking the participants out of their normal realm of discourse but some artist even move the conversation. One such artist is Maria Salo. For Vertigo, her 1989 installation at the Gay and Lesbian Community Center in New York City, she presented her work in the woman’s bathroom and asked the question, “When you watch the film Vertigo, are you Scottie Wanting Madeleine, or are you Madeleine wanting Scottie to want you? Or both? Alternately or Simultaneously? In What Proportions and intensities?” She painted the back of the stalls white so people could respond. She included two separate photos in multiple. One of Scottie and one of her with Madeleine’s face projected on her own. She later remarks that, “Within one month of the opening, three quarters of the photos were torn off the wall, remarks had spread from the doors to the bathroom walls and the name Scottie was removed from the running text.” While this might not be exactly how Salo envisioned the shape of her piece taking it is the beauty of dialogical art. It engages the viewer to participate and shape the work into the finished project. In dialogic art, “every subject with the competence to speak is allowed to take part in discourse.” “Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatsoever. (Kester)” Remarks on Salo’s piece varied greatly. Some directly answered the question she posed; some were comments on the piece itself, while others were comments made about comments. It is this connection and communication that I find most fascinating about dialogical art. Participants are free to do and say whatever they want, and it is through looking back at these remarks that we can get a better grasp of the subject matter. All dialogical art is interactive, but that is not to say that all interactive art is dialogical. It is through the exchange back and forth that the dialogue is created.

            This semester I undertook the task of creating an artwork that embodied the ideals of dialogue. It was a daunting task. I had no real clue of what to do, all I knew is that I wanted to create a piece that gave people the ability to express themselves freely and hopefully a type of dialogue would ensue. Because this was my first time working in the field I did not want to be overly ambitious. The community I wanted to engage was that of my fellow students at SFSU. I have done two iterations so far of my project Conversation Station. The piece is a booth I constructed out of PVC piping and blank canvas. Inside the booth I left felt pens so that passers by could contribte to the finished piece. My first experiment with it was during the senior show. I thought it was a good place to start because the people who would see it were primarily those interested in the arts. I wrote one work on the inside, create, and was thrilled with how well it was received. People both wrote and drew all over it. Not just on the inside but the outside as well.

            For the second iteration I took a bit of a chance and opened it up to the rest of the school. I replaced the canvas and moved the piece from the 5^th floor of the fine arts building down to the Malcolm X Plaza. This time I left the canvas completely blank as to not influence what people would contribute. Once again I was blown away at the results. I had all kinds of different responses ranging from poetry to cute drawings, and even some confessions. What excited me the most is that I was actually able to spark a bit of discussion. One addition to the booth was a heart with the words “Jesus loves you,” inside. Under that some one wrote, “No he doesn’t.”  Someone later wrote under that, “Actually he does!” And even later still someone crossed out the name Jesus and added Allah. This simple interplay exceeded my expectations, a janky little booth that I rigged together, along with the contributions of anonymous passers, was able to create a dialogue as well as get a better look at the student population of a university. While it might not be an earth shattering or life-changing event, it was my first attempt at undertaking such a daunting task, and by no means am I finished. I expect to continue down this road and push myself to be a better artist.

            As I have expressed through out this paper dialogical art can take on a wide range of possibilities and processes that can help challenge or establish a set of beliefs. It is through this dialogue that we can better understand and connect with the world and the people around us. It may not be able to hang in a gallery or be commoditized by the mainstream, but it will remain in the hands of the people where art can really do the most good.

References:

"An essay on community and communication in art." Oturn. 19 Oct 2006. 21 May 2009 .

 

deNobriga, Kathie. "Community-based Art for Social Change." http://www.communityarts.net/. Oct 1999 http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/1999/10/communitybased.php

 

Kac, Eduardo. "Defining Lines: Breaking Down Boarders." http://cristine.org/. 1999. 15 May 2009 .

 

Kester, Grant. "Conversation Pieces: The Role of Dialogue in Socially-Engaged Art." http://digitalarts.ucsd.edu/. 2004. UCSD. 15 May 2009 . 

 

Witcombe, Christopher. "ART & ARTISTS: the Renaissance and the Rise of the Artist." arthistory.sbc.edu. 1998. Sweet Briar College. 12 May 2009 .