On the neoliberal stage: The unfulfilled

promises and hopes of participatory art for

the democratization of society
Suzana Milevska
In my previous text Participatory Art: A Paradigm Shift from Objects to
Subjects [1] I had been the paradigm shift of the relations between art
objects and the audience (often called "relational aesthetics" [2]) will be
described to relations between subjects: This initiates of / the artist
interactions and conducts voluntary (or in many cases paid) participants at
various events and actions in the context of art or in the public room.
Many of the original promise of participatory art and the expectations they
appear today as overvalued and over-priced. To clarify why or to what
extent, one must first visualize their main concerns and goals: the goal
about which clear hierarchical separation between the artist (as an expert /
expert and considered essential for the creation of the work) and the public
(as passive observers) aufzu - solving; the goal, through the involvement of
various audience segments that so far because of their own elitist and
intimidating nature were not interested in art, promote democratic changes
in society, the bristling maintains inequality and hierarchies before
authoritarianism techniques; the goal to uncover social injustices in cultural,
social and political structures. In this regard, once asked by Giorgio
Agamben [3] question the lying behind all the juridical structures is one of
the major issues of this art practice. And this, even if she is only asked
rhetorically and artists can at least hope to raise awareness of the identified
inequities, being able to in any case bring about a substantial change.
The most important distinction between two different forms of participatory
art projects seems to me still evident: The first form is on the various waves
artistic and curatorial / institutional critique back, revolves around
participation within the art system and deals with the relations between a)
Art Institution and the public, b) Artist and art institution (museum, gallery,
etc.), and c) artist and curator, etc. Even if it is still relevant, but so are the
limits of these practices in the well-known criticisms of the affirmative role of
institutional critique that does not lead to fundamental institutional change,
has already been tackled. Even if the main objectives of participatory art
stem from the need to address the existing hierarchies between "high
culture" and "mass culture" (or art) to deconstruct and transcend the
individualittszentrierte art and aesthetics centered authority, they became
agents, which served the extending projections, promises and expectations
of the field.
The second form of participatory art practice is that participation is
understood as a means for creating a more democratic society, which is why
it seeks more to fundamental social and political changes (which remain not
limited to changes in the art system ). This somewhat more ambitious form
of participatory art implies the need participation to reflect in a more general
socio-political context of the contradictions of contemporary democratic
societies.

My main concern in the mentioned earlier text was to show that

participatory art can be much better understood when philosophical context,
cultural and socio-political theories of democratization and is read not only in
art history and curatorial contexts as mainly happened at that time in art
circles and the technical literature. This is not the same as to say, the whole
discourse on participatory art was wrong designed or focused or wrong to
criticize him for the overemphasis on social and ethical values towards
aesthetic and formal criteria. Art theories is not always sufficient to locate
the gaps between the promises of participation in theory and its
shortcomings in concrete art projects in different contexts. I'm interested in
the promise and awakened in these projects in terms of certain unique
relations between subjects hopes and the effects of these projects on the
real life of the participants, not only within the "laboratory conditions" of art
galleries.
Philosophical, political and sociological theories are today mainly have the
current theory and practice already anticipated - taken up by postconceptual and socially and politically engaged art, or art activism, although
some former discourses and practices - such as community-based art
projects by artists such as Stephen Willats in the 1960s and 70s.
Participation is a challenging activation of certain relationships that are
initiated by artists and guided and often brought from art institutions on the
road, but are therefore often objectified as soon as they limited by shortterm projects and of the demands for results and attendance measured
success under pressure advised. While the public is invited to participate
actively in, the / the artist participatory projects creates an interface that
must be well prepared and that is contextualized to the highest degree in a
specific social, cultural and political environment. This shift [towards
participatory projects in art] is done both as an inevitable response of the
art practice to the redefinition of the concept of community and for
communities as well as a sort of updating the social demand for
inclusion. The relocation also makes those marginalized groups of citizens
visible that were previously excluded from their own social environment or
from participation in public cultural life.
Ironically, the result is a vicious circle, which revived the elitist and
commercial art system and so alive. Focused on open art institutions and a
fundamental involvement of the audience in the process of artistic practice
and production, produced the tendency to participation new distinctions and
"elites" by the public is directly involved at different levels, without the
participants in all stages of the process alike would be upheld, for example
with regard to the representation of the results in subsequent exhibitions,
participation in exhibitions and the eventual sale of the results. Such
differentiation of the audience can lead to the development of diversified
artistic and cultural policies among curators and art managers, as well as to
greater awareness at "elitist" museum and gallery audience for "other"
visitors or participants. But often they turn out to be not easy to handle and
fall on the way to glory under the table (and end, for example in a video
documentation). That does not mean to say, however, that the second form
of participatory art is necessarily more successful in terms of meeting the

promise they therefore describe as the only "succeed ends act" within the
meaning of JL Austin's speech. After Austin the difference between what is
said and what is done on the context and the circumstances depends, and
ultimately can only be the context effect the fulfillment of the promise. [4]
That is why I want to focus on the promises and the reasons for their nonCompliance focus of participatory art practice in the second variant.
It is important to note that the problems of participatory art practice, the
promise of democracy and emancipation, are directly linked to the context of
contemporary, neo-liberal societies in which they operate. In this respect I
verorte the main reason for the failure of such systematic "mission
impossible" more in the internal contradictions of contemporary democratic
societies than in the structure of the art projects themselves. In whatever
form of participation is to be discussed in the context of art, it always refers
necessarily to a particular "we" and a specific identification with a particular
community, where other members of selected groups (parts of the audience,
certain occupational groups, homeless, children) fall into coexistence with
this "We".
Participatory art projects aimed at democratization, can be associated with
the older philosophical approach of John Dewey beyond, especially in
connection with the critical debate about education as a means of social
change. [5] It is no coincidence that many participatory art projects are run
by the education and mediation departments of museums or other
institutions and themselves contextual focus on pedagogy and
epistemology. The "participatory turn" and the "educational turn" are
frequently linked together by current artistic and curatorial projects that
relate to critical education and pedagogy and mostly to the ideas of Ivan
Illich (The deschooling society), Paulo Freire (Pedagogy the oppressed),
Peter McLaren (Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture, Life in Schools: An
Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education) and
Jacques Rancire (The ignorant teacher) appointed. The Forschungsund art
projects by artists such as Olafur Elliasson, Tanja Ostoji, Tania Bruguera,
Ahmet gt, Chto Delat or Pablo Helguera have clearly pointed out the
educational potential of participatory and socially oriented art practices.
The second variant of participatory art projects brings artists often together
with the civil society activism and leads to collaborations in solidarity with
existing as well as newly created organizations of activists to the paradox of
democracy in neoliberal times berwinden.6 Participatory art raises issues
such as social inclusion of different communities and individuals - with
regard to ethnicity, gender and class - in all sectors of society structures and
often deals with political correctness and criticism of privilege and
exploitation as a means of overcoming inequality. To put it in a nutshell: The
paradigm shift from objects to subjects can not be discussed beyond the
general social context and without all involved processes (government
policies, economic change, institutional dependencies cultural policy decision
- makers of the government policies, local political considerations, etc.) to
be considered. Or to put it even more directly to say, the larger sociopolitical
and kononomische context, produced and practiced in the art, overrides

the ambitious goals of participatory art.

Suzana Milevska is independent art theorist and curator based in Skopje,
Macedonia.
Translated from English by Jens Kastner.
[1] Suzana Milevska,Participatory art. Considerations for a paradigm shift
from object tosubject, in: springerin, No. 12/2, 2006, pp 18-23,
http: //www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1761
[2] Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics, Paris 2002, p 9.
[3] Giorgio Agamben, Homo sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Frankfurt
am Main, 2002.
[4] John L. Austin, On the theory of speech acts (How to Do Things
with Words), Stuttgart 1986.
[5] John Dewey, Education and Social Change, in: Fred
Schultz, Sources. Notable Selections in Education (ED 3rd.), McGraw-Hill
Dushkin, New York 2001, pp 333-341. [6] Paul Clements, The Recuperation
of Participatory ArtPractices, in: International Journal of Art and
Design Education, 30.1, 2011 .: S. 18-30
....................
On the neoliberal stage: The unfulfilled promises and hopes of
participatory art for the democratization of society
Suzana Milevska
In my previous text Participatory Art: A Paradigm Shift from Objects to
Subjects [1] I had been the paradigm shift of the relations between art
objects and the audience (often called "relational aesthetics" [2]) will be
described to relations between subjects: This initiates of / the artist
interactions and conducts voluntary (or in many cases paid) participants at
various events and actions in the context of art or in the public room.

Many of the original promise of participatory art and the expectations of

today they appear to be overvalued or as excessive. To clarify why or to
what extent, one must first visualize their main concerns and goals: the goal
about which clear hierarchical separation between the artist (as an expert /
expert and considered essential for the creation of the work) and the public
(as passive observers) aufzu - solving; the goal, through the involvement of
various audience segments that so far because of their own elitist and
intimidating nature were not interested in art, promote democratic changes
in society, the bristling maintains inequality and hierarchies before
authoritarianism techniques; the goal to uncover social injustices in cultural,
social and political structures. In this regard, once asked by Giorgio
Agamben [3] question the lying behind all the juridical structures is one of

the major issues of this art practice. And this, even if she is only asked
rhetorically and artists can hope, at least, raise awareness of the identified
inequities, being able to bring in any case be considered as substantial
changes.

The most important distinction between two different forms of participatory

art projects seems to me still evident: The first form goes back to the
various waves artistic and curatorial / institutional criticism revolves around
participation within the art system and deals with the relations between a)
art institution and audience , b) Artist and art institution (museum, gallery,
etc.) and c) artist and curator, etc. Even if it is still relevant, but the
limitations of this practice in the well-known criticisms of the affirmative role
of institutional critique that does not have to be fundamental institutional
change leads, has already been tackled. Even if the main objectives of
participatory art stem from the need to address the existing hierarchies
between "high culture" and "mass culture" (or art) to deconstruct and
transcend the individualittszentrierte art and aesthetics centered authority,
they became agents, which served the projections, expectations and
promise of the field to expand.

The second form of participatory art practice is that participation is

understood as a means for creating a more democratic society, which is why
it seeks more to fundamental social and political changes (that do not
remain limited to changes in the system of art). This somewhat more
ambitious form of participatory art implies the need to reflect participation in
a broader socio-political context of the contradictions of contemporary
democratic societies.

My main concern in the mentioned earlier text was to show that

participatory art can be far better understood when read in the context of
philosophical, cultural and socio-political theories of democratization and not
only in art history and curatorial contexts, such as in those days art circles
and technical literature mainly happened. This is not the same as to say, the
whole discourse on participatory art was wrong designed or focused or
wrong to criticize him for the overemphasis on social and ethical values
towards aesthetic and formal criteria. Art theories is not always sufficient to
locate the gaps between the promises of participation in theory and its
shortcomings in concrete art projects in different contexts. I'm interested in
the promise and awakened in these projects in terms of certain unique
relations between subjects hopes and the effects of these projects on the
real life of the participants, not only within the "laboratory conditions" of art
galleries.

Philosophical, political and sociological theories are today taken up mainly by

post-conceptual and socially and politically engaged art, or art activism,

although some former discourses and practices - such as community-based
art projects by artists such as Stephen Willats in the 1960s and 70s - the
current theory and practice has already been adopted.

Participation is a challenging activation of certain relationships that are

initiated by artists and guided and often brought from art institutions on the
road, but are therefore often objectified as soon as they limited by shortterm projects and advised by the demands for results and attendance
measured success under pressure , While the public is invited to participate
actively in, the / the artist participatory projects creates an interface that
must be well prepared and that is contextualized to the highest degree in a
specific social, cultural and political environment. This shift [towards
participatory projects in art] is done both as an inevitable response of the
art practice to the redefinition of the concept of community and for
communities as well as a sort of updating the social demand for inclusion.
The relocation also makes those marginalized groups of citizens visible that
were previously excluded from their own social environment or from
participation in public cultural life.

Ironically, the result is a vicious circle, which revived the elitist and
commercial art system and receives so alive. Focused on open art
institutions and a fundamental involvement of the audience in the process of
artistic practice and production, produced the tendency to participation new
distinctions and "elites" by the public is directly involved at different levels,
without the participants in all stages of the process alike would be upheld,
for example with regard to the representation of the results in subsequent
exhibitions, participation in exhibitions and the eventual sale of the results.
Such differentiation of the audience can lead to the development of
diversified artistic and cultural policies among curators and art managers, as
well as to greater awareness at "elitist" museum and gallery audience for
"other" visitors or participants. But often they turn out to be not easy to
handle and fall on the way to glory under the table (and end, for example in
a video documentation). This does not mean to say that the second form of
participatory art is necessarily more successful in terms of meeting the
promise, so the only "succeed ends act" within the meaning JL Austin's
speech to describe. After Austin the difference between what is said and
what is done on the context and the circumstances depends, and ultimately
can only be the context effect the fulfillment of the promise. [4] That is why
I want to focus on the promises and the reasons for their non- Compliance
focus of participatory art practice in the second variant.

It is important to note that the problems of participatory art practice, the

promise of democracy and emancipation, are directly linked to the context of
contemporary, neo-liberal societies in which they operate. In this respect I

verorte the main reason for the failure of such systematic "mission
impossible" more in the internal contradictions of contemporary democratic
societies than in the structure of the art projects themselves. In whatever
form of participation is to be discussed in the context of art, it always refers
necessarily to a particular "we" and a specific identification with a particular
community, where other members of selected groups (parts of the audience,
certain occupational groups, homeless, children) fall into coexistence with
this "We".

Participatory art projects aimed at democratization, can also be associated

with the older philosophical approach of John Dewey, especially in
connection with the critical conflict over education as an agent for social
change. [5] It is no coincidence that many participatory art projects are run
by the education and mediation departments of museums or other
institutions and themselves contextual focus on pedagogy and epistemology.
The "participatory turn" and the "educational turn" are frequently linked
together by current artistic and curatorial projects that relate to critical
education and pedagogy and mostly to the ideas of Ivan Illich (The
deschooling society), Paulo Freire (Pedagogy the oppressed), Peter McLaren
(Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture, Life in Schools: An Introduction to
Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education) and Jacques Rancire
called (The ignorant teacher). The Forschungsund art projects by artists
such as Olafur Elliasson, Tanja Ostoji, Tania Bruguera, Ahmet gt, Chto
Delat or Pablo Helguera have clearly pointed out the educational potential of
participatory and socially oriented art practices.

The second variant of participatory art projects brings artists often with the
civil society activism together, leading to collaborations in solidarity with
existing as well as newly created organizations of activists to the paradox of
democracy in neoliberal times berwinden.6 Participatory art raises issues
such as social inclusion various communities and individuals - with regard to
ethnicity, gender and class - in all social structures and often deals with
political correctness and criticism of privilege and exploitation as a means of
overcoming inequality.

To put it in a nutshell: The paradigm shift from objects to subjects can not
be discussed beyond the general social context and without any processes
involved (government policies, economic change, institutional dependencies
cultural policy decision - makers of the government policies, local political
considerations etc to draw.) into consideration. Or to put it even more
directly to say, the larger socio-political context and kononomische,
produced and practiced in the art, overrides the ambitious goals of
participatory art.

Suzana Milevska is independent art theorist and curator based in Skopje,

Macedonia.

Translated from English by Jens Kastner.

[1] Suzana Milevska, Participatory art. Considerations for a paradigm shift

from object to subject, in: springerin, No. 12/2, 2006, pp 18-23,
http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1761

[2] Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics, Paris 2002, p. 9

[3] Giorgio Agamben, Homo sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Frankfurt
of 2002.

[4] John L. Austin, On the theory of speech acts (How to Do Things with
Words), Stuttgart 1986th

[5] John Dewey, Education and Social Change, in: Fred Schultz, Sources.
Notable Selections in Education (3rd ed.), McGraw-Hill Dushkin, New York
2001, pp 333-341.

[6] Paul Clements, The Recuperation of Participatory Art Practices, in:

International Journal of Art and Design Education, 30.1, 2011 .: S. 18-30