INSIGHTS 39
Several respondents stated that critical discourse should
be led by artists with lived expertise of social practice, rather
than critics and academics:
We need to find ways to allow the artist
to write about it. We need the artist’s
voice to come out because they’re the
ones that are in the communities… not
the commissioners because they don’t
go into the communities in the same way
and certainly not the critics or the
academics (Commissioner, 4B)
At the same time, some felt that there was a lack of traction
for existing writing about social practice, arguing that more
should be done to ensure that the debates and findings of
social practice research reached the right people and were
taken seriously:
We produce all these wonderful reports
about arts and health and the data
about why it’s effective… and academia
and the intellectual basis behind
it I think has been slow to catch up
(Commissioner, 9B)
Researchers felt too that there needed to be more opportunities
to link up between research and practice and to share
writings with the wider community around social art:
We don’t want to go to all the trouble
to start producing content that nobody
reads. It’s always helpful to hear more
from people who will be your reader and
your contributor (Researcher, 2C)
UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
As the societal benefits of social practice have made it an
increasingly valuable commodity in the public funding landscape,
interviewees reported that projects are often subject to
very high expectations from partners, including commissioners
and participants, which can be difficult or even impossible to
fulfil. In particular, the expectation that art projects effect measurable
social change, a value central to the work of some social
artists but not to others, was felt as a source of potential tension.
Some artists reported that organisations are unrealistic
about the extent of change that is possible in a project’s timeframe
and budget:
I was once asked by a council that
had given me £500, how did I sort out
poverty?… If you could solve poverty
with £500, there wouldn’t be poverty!
(Artist, 22A)
For others, an emphasis on solutions overlooked the
important role played by artists in raising questions and
highlighting problems, sometimes referred to as ‘agonism’
(Schrag, 2016):
I think the increasing want or need for
this practice to solve so many problems
and so many gaps is a huge problem and
I think it’s a huge demand on artists
and on producers and on participants
as well. [There is an] idea that this
form of practice is there to make up
for or to solve a lot of problems. It’s
maybe not understood that art isn’t
always there to solve problems. Art
can be disruptive and uncomfortable
and can sometimes illuminate more
problems than were highlighted before
(Commissioner, 3B)
Others resisted the view that social change was a viable —
or desirable — aim of their work. Instead, they viewed collaboration
as an artistic choice, a privilege that often benefits
the artist more than is generally acknowledged, doubting the