mailout arts and communities 30


REVIEW The Journal of Arts and


Along with many other people I have been criticising the Community Arts movement for years for not being reflective and for having no view of its history and little understanding of its impacts. It always seemed to me that those of us engaged in the practice have always used the excuse that we were too busy doing it to actually write anything down about what we are doing.


Of course the many years of existence of mailout would seem to belie that assertion, bristling as it is with news, comment and case studies, but I can never bring myself to open its glossy pages without thinking that we, in the community arts world are caught in some sort of small referential bubble cut off from the main stream discussions about, arts, culture, and community. So for this, if for no other reason I welcomed the arrival of the Journal of Arts and Communities. Here at last was an organ that would open up the field to academic debate and perhaps bring to critical rigour to the way we understand the practice of Community Arts.


Mark Webster is Programme Area Manager in the Faculty of Arts, Media and Design at Staffordshire University. He teaches on the MA in Community and Participatory Arts at Staffordshire University. For more information about the MA go to W: www.staffs.ac.uk /ccu


Now on to its second edition (Volume 1, number 2) we have here, in the Journal of Arts and Communities, a good solid publication that would seem to address some of my concerns. It contains a range of articles covering themes as diverse as “ Truth Ethics and Efficacy in the Training of Actors for Role Play” (David Grant) through to an exploration of the development and use of rituals in Community and public art (“Inventing Rituals; inhabiting places” Ruth Jones). It does not swerve from the theoretical, for instance in Pauline Sameshima et al’s chapter “Rendering Embodied Heteroglossic Spaces” while being able to review something of its legacy and impact, as in Sharon Irish’s piece describing the work of artist Josué Pellott Ganzales in the Puerto Rican Communities of Chicago (“Along Paseo Boricua”).


However, reading through this edition of the Journal I am still left with the same feeling of disquiet as I had on reading Number 1 in the series. While celebrating that we now have an academic journal which draws on a range of writings and references from more than just our introspective isle and applauding the fact that there are clearly now eminent academics from a range of fields who are prepared to direct their efforts towards this area of human endeavour, I cannot help but feel a sense of unease about the suitability of the subject matter for this kind of academic scrutiny.


Communities (Volume 1, No. 2) Review by Mark Webster


the journal though is that this lack of coherence in the practice does not seem to be a matter of concern for those who are reflecting on its use in academic research and writing.


If Community Arts ever had an identity as a movement or an agreed definition of its practice it had certainly lost it by the time I started lecturing about it in 2004.


As a community arts practitioner in the 80s and 90s and into the new Millennium, I saw participatory arts as a practice change from being a minor league occupation pursued by a small band of dedicated and motivated individuals to a the main stream activity practiced by local authorities, hospitals and a range of institutions. During this time it lost its revolutionary zeal and just became another type of social intervention using the arts. The fact that it had never recorded its own history or built up a body of writing to define itself meant that it could be defined as almost any arts activity that happened in communities or reflected upon community. This in itself is not a problem. I rejoice in the fact that arts are more widespread than ever and that people have more opportunity than ever before to transform their lives through creativity. What makes me feel uncomfortable about the writings in


I guess what I was hoping for in a journal was some sort of reflection on the legacy of the movement as well as a commentary on contemporary practice. Something that would suggest that it was a practice bound by a set of principles and values that had a purpose and direction. In this edition of the Journal, although I find all of the contributions well written, interesting and stimulating it is only Tony Coult’s Chapter (Rivercross) dealing with a drama-in-health project using soap opera as a model, and perhaps to a lesser extent the aforementioned chapters by Sharon Irish and David Grant that really tackle any of the questions about what Community Arts exists for and what makes it distinct and vital.


Perhaps I am missing the point about what the purpose of this journal should be and criticising it for something it is not rather than accepting what it is and what it sets out to achieve. It is just that I can’t help feeling that a journal that is called The Journal of Arts and Communities should have a view about what Community Arts is and what it is for, especially as we now stand at a moment in history when we face cuts in arts funding unrivalled in recent history. After all if we are not able to put a value what Community Arts is, how are we ever going to be able to defend it?a


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40