Douglas McLennan & Mike White

A few weeks back I made a brief post about the then upcoming Percolate talk with Douglas McLennan entitled Liquid Culture: How the Digital Revolution is Transforming the Arts. As McLennan pointed out in his talk, the most interesting aspect of a lecture or conference often isn’t what is spoken by the presenter(s), but what happens at the end of the day or between sessions when people talk about the ideas that were put forth. In the interim between February’s Percolate and now, I’ve been talking to a lot of different people about what I took away from the session, what were some of the things that (I and others) felt were not addressed/considered, and how the some of the things McLennan spoke about coalesced with other talks I have been to since then. If you missed it, fear not! You can listen to the talk here: http://percolateyeg.tumblr.com/

The thrust of McLennan’s talk was that the acts of creating and sharing help us define ourselves and are fundamental aspects of culture in the digital age. This is based on the simple premise that by exposing us to new ideas or ways of thinking, sharing inspires creativity both in others and in ourselves and offers us a foundation upon which we can build. Furthermore, McLennan argued that success in the arts should be measured by engagement. Here, engagement was defined as those moments when people are provoked to interact with each other and then share that experience. This kind of experience is one that McLennan places in opposition to the more traditional top down approach where people are invited to absorb the content being presented to them (whether it’s a piece of music, a play, an artwork, etc.). The shift McLennan describes is one that away from the teacher/student model to one of discovery and collaboration. By re-visioning people as active players that participate in the negotiation of meaning, rather than simply passive consumers, an experience becomes more meaningful because their relationship to the content has fundamentally changed. While this idea isn’t new, it remains a compelling one.

(As a side note - I did find it somewhat ironic that McLennan’s talk was very traditional, with an introduction, the talk, followed by a Q & A period, rather than the collaborative kind he was advocating….)

McLennan used the term “share economy” to describe this process of engagement, suggesting that an experience is not complete unless it is shared or passed on to others (in his view this is especially true for “younger people”). Connection is made through interactions and our cultural institutions, like art galleries, a concert venues, or theaters become sites where knowledge and experiences are shared. It is here where things become sticky. Many cultural institutions prohibit the taking of photographs and/or the recording of performances, which disrupts the “share economy.” McLennan contends that institutions place these restrictions because they are afraid that they won’t be able to control the quality of the content or the institution’s brand/image.

Thinking about Edmonton’s arts institutions, I don’t feel this is entirely a fair assessment. I’m willing to concede that control is likely part of the issue. However, in the art galleries I’ve worked at it is often copyright law that prohibits people from taking pictures. The most problematic exhibitions tend to be those that are on loan from other institutions with their own set of stipulations. When permissions are secured, then people are not only welcome, but encouraged, to do so. Other major barriers include unions designed to protect intellectual property, and increasingly the donors/sponsors who help fund arts programs.

The other part of I found valuable was McLennan’s formulation that art should be conceptualized as a process and not a product. This reiterates his earlier point about engagement and interaction and calls for a paradigm shift. Engagement facilitates interaction and builds relationships with members of the broader community, or with different communities. By inviting people to interpret, use, change, or build upon their experiences, culture is produced. Furthermore, engagement increases visibility and visibility is a powerful force.

The week after I attended Percolate, I was invited to hear Mike White, a Research and Development Fellow at the Centre for Medical Humanities at Durham University, give a keynote address entitled “The Means to Flourish - Arts in Community Health and Education.” It was phenomenal - I was so impressed that I ordered a copy of his book “Arts Development in Community Health” (which just arrived today!) For his part, White stressed the tranformative role of community engagement. He was also far more pragmatic. Instead of simply pointing out the importance of engagement, White cited ways to make this happen highlighting community initiatives he had helped instigate like “lantern processions” (among other visual arts projects including a “Domain Field” by Gormley). In addition, White discussed some of the barriers to implementing the strategies he discussed, such as funding, the use of public/private spaces, the initial resistance from both institutions and the community (before people came to embrace and look forward to the initiatives), and the question of sustainability.

While both talks addressed the role of the arts in the development of culture, in my view, White’s talk was more successful and had a greater impact than the McLennan talk because it addressed the question of implementation. That being said, I was glad to have heard them in the order I did, since there were some fundamental connections between the two.

The next Percolate talk, Towards A Better Understanding of Arts in the Alberta Economy & Society, will be on March 14th with Kelly Hill. I’m curious to hear how this one will compare.

These are just some of my thoughts. Yours?