Skip to main content

By Zurah Taylor

Three Key Major Ideas
·      There has been a shift in the United States Art community, resulting in a “new genre” of public art. This new genre had influenced different funding foundations to change the guidelines for artist they want to fund. Particularly the MacArthur foundation changing there language to specifically reject any art in favor of community based organizations that are working to promote social justice and democracy through media. This shift in funding had really shocked me.
·      The conservative’s view on community outreach. When he says Welfare and arts funding can be viewed as “symptomatic of a general cultural and moral decline. He then goes on to say conservatives view such programs as robing the rich of spiritual growth that is provided by individual acts of philanthropy, it implies that conservatives wish to take part in community outreach to feel good about their selves.  
·      The way artist are more commonly engaging with their community participants, they are acting in more of a parental role using their pieces to inspire them to participate in their own community’s recovery.
I can fully can get behind the notion of including the community that one is creating the piece for or about in ones process of constructing said piece. It seems to be a great way of enriching the work while also ensuring that the communities voice is being displayed not just the foreign artist. 

Three questions 
·      One question I have is can someone (a foreign artist) truly able to create community based art, that serve the people in communities they are not a part of?
·      How can community based art get more funding?
·      I believe community based art is meant to enrich the community, but it seems easy to fall into the trap of trying “fix” said community. How can we avoid that?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jeremy Griffith - The Roof is on Fire

1. CONTEXT: What were the circumstances that framed the meaning and process of this project? There are many minority teens in low-income, low-opportunity areas who have unheard voices. Their self-esteem isn't cultivated and all of their portrayal in the media is negative. 2. CONTENT: What was the issue, need, idea or opportunity addressed by this project? Teen voices were unheard, opinions of them were based on negative media stereotypes, and many of them had very poor self-esteem. 3: FORM: What is the medium that was used to address or embody the content? Immersive theatre in the form of car-conversations that audience members could eavesdrop on. 4. STAKEHOLDERS: Which are the groups or individuals that were invested in the project? The teenagers were very invested because of their desire to free their voices. The adults who helped were invested because they wanted to help these kids start to change the narrative. And the d...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mind Map

Post a Comment
Read more

What a Riot - Bri Pattillo

   I like the Theater of the Oppressed methodology of the Joker. It sort of reminded me of El Pachuco in “Zoot Suit”, like this narrator commenting on all the action. I thought the Joker methodology was a good way to introduce a Theater of the Oppressed tactic into the piece. A lot of the Theater of the Oppressed options that we read about last week have an element of questioning within in them, but I think the Joker was a good one to use with young people. It was nice and cool that she was able to include the students’ actual questions into the play.     I did think her approach was rather problematic. She highlighted the problem herself and posed the question, “To whom and to what is the author beholden when writing a play for a specified population that has been invited to contribute to the playwriting process?” My problem was her answer, when she said that the students didn’t understand all of the references or language in the play. I don’t...
Post a Comment
Read more